<?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>2024 (3) TMI 148 - ITAT DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=450367</link>
    <description>ITAT Delhi upheld reopening of assessment based on information from Investigation Wing regarding bogus purchases from supplier. During search of third-party group, statements revealed supplier was not engaged in real business and supplied no physical goods. Assessee&#039;s name appeared in supplier&#039;s books showing transactions. ITAT found AO&#039;s reasons specific and reliable, rejecting challenge to jurisdiction assumption. Regarding income estimation, ITAT upheld CIT(A)&#039;s 5% gross profit addition on bogus purchases, noting assessee failed to prove bona fides of supplier or discharge onus regarding sale parties. Both Revenue&#039;s appeal and assessee&#039;s cross-objection dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 29 Feb 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 04 Mar 2024 09:15:22 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=745604" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (3) TMI 148 - ITAT DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=450367</link>
      <description>ITAT Delhi upheld reopening of assessment based on information from Investigation Wing regarding bogus purchases from supplier. During search of third-party group, statements revealed supplier was not engaged in real business and supplied no physical goods. Assessee&#039;s name appeared in supplier&#039;s books showing transactions. ITAT found AO&#039;s reasons specific and reliable, rejecting challenge to jurisdiction assumption. Regarding income estimation, ITAT upheld CIT(A)&#039;s 5% gross profit addition on bogus purchases, noting assessee failed to prove bona fides of supplier or discharge onus regarding sale parties. Both Revenue&#039;s appeal and assessee&#039;s cross-objection dismissed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 29 Feb 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=450367</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>