<?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 (8) TMI 1519 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292359</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the validity of the assessment reopening based on information from the sales tax department regarding suspicious purchases. However, the Tribunal reduced the addition on account of alleged bogus purchases from 6% to 3% for the partnership firm engaged in supplying marine products to PSUs. The decision was influenced by factors such as profit rates, lack of comparative data, and the nature of the business. The AO was directed to limit the addition to 3% of the disputed purchases for the relevant years.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 24 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 19 Dec 2020 20:17:55 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=630767" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (8) TMI 1519 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292359</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the validity of the assessment reopening based on information from the sales tax department regarding suspicious purchases. However, the Tribunal reduced the addition on account of alleged bogus purchases from 6% to 3% for the partnership firm engaged in supplying marine products to PSUs. The decision was influenced by factors such as profit rates, lack of comparative data, and the nature of the business. The AO was directed to limit the addition to 3% of the disputed purchases for the relevant years.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 24 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292359</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>