https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=390397 The tribunal partly allowed the appeal filed by the appellant, involved in the diamond trade, challenging the confirmation of additions to alleged bogus purchases. The tribunal found the 8% addition by the CIT(A) excessive and unreasonable, directing the AO to apply a 3% rate on the bogus purchases. The decision emphasized the need for a reasonable profit rate, considering the low profit margins in the appellant's trade. The tribunal's ruling provided relief to the appellant by adjusting the rate of addition, addressing the issue of varying rates applied by the authorities. en-us Tue, 19 Nov 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 01 Jan 2020 17:27:58 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=390397 The tribunal partly allowed the appeal filed by the appellant, involved in the diamond trade, challenging the confirmation of additions to alleged bogus purchases. The tribunal found the 8% addition by the CIT(A) excessive and unreasonable, directing the AO to apply a 3% rate on the bogus purchases. The decision emphasized the need for a reasonable profit rate, considering the low profit margins in the appellant's trade. The tribunal's ruling provided relief to the appellant by adjusting the rate of addition, addressing the issue of varying rates applied by the authorities. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 19 Nov 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=390397