Scope of judicial review under Article 226: supervisory, not appellate; factual reappraisal barred, challenge dismissed; insolvency professional dutie...
Courier transshipment of imported goods via named carrier to air cargo stations renewed until 30.01.2026; exemption conditional, strict controls apply...
Insurer's investment gains and investment write-downs face Section 263 revision; enquiry upheld, Rule 5(b)(ii) lapse sustained, late corrigendum quash...
Page of 4817
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
7241 to 7260 of 96333 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Bogus purchases and estimation of income were examined where the CIT(A) had directed the AO to add only the gross profit element in respect of purchases from four alleged suppliers. The tribunal found the assessee's construction activity undisputed and concluded purchases were actually from other parties yielding profits higher than the disclosed GP rate, so the CIT(A)'s restriction was incorrect. Applying jurisdictional High Court precedent that taxes only the profit margin in bogus purchases, the ITAT restricted the addition for the four non existent parties to 5% above the assessee's disclosed GP rate and partly allowed the revenue appeal.
Bogus purchases and estimation of income were examined where the CIT(A) had directed the AO to add only the gross profit element in respect of purchases from four alleged suppliers. The tribunal found the assessee's construction activity undisputed and concluded purchases were actually from other parties yielding profits higher than the disclosed GP rate, so the CIT(A)'s restriction was incorrect. Applying jurisdictional High Court precedent that taxes only the profit margin in bogus purchases, the ITAT restricted the addition for the four non existent parties to 5% above the assessee's disclosed GP rate and partly allowed the revenue appeal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.