<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2016 (7) TMI 63 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=329465</link>
    <description>The court ruled in favor of the assessee, directing a deduction at 75% of the purchase expenditure instead of disallowing the entire amount. The court found errors in the ITAT&#039;s decisions regarding the disallowance of purchase expenditure treated as bogus and unexplained fictitious purchases/creditors. The court referenced previous cases to justify the deduction and emphasized that the purchases were legitimate despite discrepancies in billing. The judgment was unanimous, with no separate opinions mentioned.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 16 Jun 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 30 Jul 2016 15:37:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=433591" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (7) TMI 63 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=329465</link>
      <description>The court ruled in favor of the assessee, directing a deduction at 75% of the purchase expenditure instead of disallowing the entire amount. The court found errors in the ITAT&#039;s decisions regarding the disallowance of purchase expenditure treated as bogus and unexplained fictitious purchases/creditors. The court referenced previous cases to justify the deduction and emphasized that the purchases were legitimate despite discrepancies in billing. The judgment was unanimous, with no separate opinions mentioned.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 16 Jun 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=329465</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>