<?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>2021 (12) TMI 400 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=415634</link>
    <description>The ITAT Mumbai disagreed with the Ld.CIT(A)&#039;s decision to enhance the non-genuine purchases disallowance to 100% and directed the Assessing Officer to estimate the profit element at 12.5%. The ITAT emphasized taxing only the profit element embedded in non-genuine purchases, not the entire amount. The decision was based on precedents and the inability of the assessee to conclusively prove the purchases&#039; authenticity. The appeal was partly allowed, with income computation based on the estimated profit element.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 10 Nov 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Dec 2021 08:36:14 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=663521" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2021 (12) TMI 400 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=415634</link>
      <description>The ITAT Mumbai disagreed with the Ld.CIT(A)&#039;s decision to enhance the non-genuine purchases disallowance to 100% and directed the Assessing Officer to estimate the profit element at 12.5%. The ITAT emphasized taxing only the profit element embedded in non-genuine purchases, not the entire amount. The decision was based on precedents and the inability of the assessee to conclusively prove the purchases&#039; authenticity. The appeal was partly allowed, with income computation based on the estimated profit element.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 10 Nov 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=415634</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>