<?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>2019 (4) TMI 2153 - ITAT KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313509</link>
    <description>ITAT Kolkata allowed the assessee&#039;s appeal regarding bogus purchase disallowance. The tribunal found purchases genuine based on supporting documents including bills, delivery challans, weigh bridge certificates, transportation details, and bank statements. The Maharashtra Sales Tax department&#039;s findings were insufficient without providing relevant materials to the assessee. The tribunal noted corresponding sales were accepted as correct by revenue. Additionally, the 10% ad hoc disallowance was rejected as the AO failed to identify specific defects in claimed expenses. The unexplained cash deposits addition was also deleted as the assessee provided ledger accounts and cash flow statements showing re-deposits of withdrawn amounts.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 23 Apr 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 18 Apr 2024 16:46:20 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=750422" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (4) TMI 2153 - ITAT KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313509</link>
      <description>ITAT Kolkata allowed the assessee&#039;s appeal regarding bogus purchase disallowance. The tribunal found purchases genuine based on supporting documents including bills, delivery challans, weigh bridge certificates, transportation details, and bank statements. The Maharashtra Sales Tax department&#039;s findings were insufficient without providing relevant materials to the assessee. The tribunal noted corresponding sales were accepted as correct by revenue. Additionally, the 10% ad hoc disallowance was rejected as the AO failed to identify specific defects in claimed expenses. The unexplained cash deposits addition was also deleted as the assessee provided ledger accounts and cash flow statements showing re-deposits of withdrawn amounts.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 23 Apr 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313509</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>