Condonation of refiling delay refused where repeated defects, lack of diligence and vague explanations defeated the appeal against resolution plan app...
Page of 4827
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
4381 to 4400 of 96536 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s order, dismissing the Revenue's appeal against the AO's addition on account of bogus purchases. While the AO added 25% of turnover as gross profit, the CIT(A) restricted the addition to 2.46%, reflecting the assessee's declared average gross profit over AYs 2020-21 to 2022-23. The Tribunal found that despite the purchases being non-genuine, the declared sales were undisputed and necessary to achieve turnover. Considering precedents where additions for bogus purchases approximate 5% GP, the CIT(A)'s imposition of 2.46% addition was reasonable and proportionate. Consequently, the ITAT affirmed the CIT(A)'s findings and dismissed the Revenue's appeal, confirming the limited addition to the assessee's income under the impugned assessment years.
The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s order, dismissing the Revenue's appeal against the AO's addition on account of bogus purchases. While the AO added 25% of turnover as gross profit, the CIT(A) restricted the addition to 2.46%, reflecting the assessee's declared average gross profit over AYs 2020-21 to 2022-23. The Tribunal found that despite the purchases being non-genuine, the declared sales were undisputed and necessary to achieve turnover. Considering precedents where additions for bogus purchases approximate 5% GP, the CIT(A)'s imposition of 2.46% addition was reasonable and proportionate. Consequently, the ITAT affirmed the CIT(A)'s findings and dismissed the Revenue's appeal, confirming the limited addition to the assessee's income under the impugned assessment years.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4827 
Join Channel 
