<?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>2020 (2) TMI 662 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=392218</link>
    <description>HC upheld the Tribunal&#039;s findings that purported purchases from non-existent suppliers were not wholly disallowable; only the embedded profit margin, not the entire purchase value, was taxable. The Tribunal, after confirming purchases corresponded to recorded sales and banked payments, sustained a 5% profit addition (2% by CIT(A) plus an extra 3% by the Tribunal). The HC found no error in this approach and held the matter raised no substantial question of law.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 10 Feb 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 18 Nov 2025 11:20:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=604047" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (2) TMI 662 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=392218</link>
      <description>HC upheld the Tribunal&#039;s findings that purported purchases from non-existent suppliers were not wholly disallowable; only the embedded profit margin, not the entire purchase value, was taxable. The Tribunal, after confirming purchases corresponded to recorded sales and banked payments, sustained a 5% profit addition (2% by CIT(A) plus an extra 3% by the Tribunal). The HC found no error in this approach and held the matter raised no substantial question of law.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 10 Feb 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=392218</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>