<?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 (7) TMI 88 - ITAT SURAT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=754868</link>
    <description>The ITAT Surat dismissed the revenue&#039;s appeal regarding bogus purchases addition. The AO alleged the assessee received accommodation entries from Keshav Impex, but the assessee consistently maintained they sold goods to, not purchased from, this party. The AO ignored the assessee&#039;s sales register, payment register, and stock register evidence, making additions without proper verification. The CIT(A) deleted the entire addition, finding the AO failed to discharge his burden of disproving the sales transaction. The ITAT upheld this decision, noting no adverse material substantiated the bogus purchase allegations and the AO ignored vital facts supporting legitimate sales transactions.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 28 Jun 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 02 Jul 2024 07:56:07 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=758413" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (7) TMI 88 - ITAT SURAT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=754868</link>
      <description>The ITAT Surat dismissed the revenue&#039;s appeal regarding bogus purchases addition. The AO alleged the assessee received accommodation entries from Keshav Impex, but the assessee consistently maintained they sold goods to, not purchased from, this party. The AO ignored the assessee&#039;s sales register, payment register, and stock register evidence, making additions without proper verification. The CIT(A) deleted the entire addition, finding the AO failed to discharge his burden of disproving the sales transaction. The ITAT upheld this decision, noting no adverse material substantiated the bogus purchase allegations and the AO ignored vital facts supporting legitimate sales transactions.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 28 Jun 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=754868</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>