<?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 1131 - ITAT SURAT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=755911</link>
    <description>The ITAT Surat upheld the AO&#039;s reopening of assessment based on credible information from Investigation Wing and ED regarding money laundering and foreign remittances by Hassanfatta group entities to Dubai and Hong Kong companies using fake documents. The assessee had transacted with these entities. The Tribunal sustained 6% addition on bogus purchases following precedent but deleted additions under Section 69 for unexplained loans as transactions were properly recorded in books. Regarding penny stock transactions, the Tribunal upheld CIT(A)&#039;s deletion of additions, noting payments were made from disclosed bank accounts and resulted in losses rather than unexplained investments.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 10 Jul 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 22 Jul 2024 17:13:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=761082" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (7) TMI 1131 - ITAT SURAT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=755911</link>
      <description>The ITAT Surat upheld the AO&#039;s reopening of assessment based on credible information from Investigation Wing and ED regarding money laundering and foreign remittances by Hassanfatta group entities to Dubai and Hong Kong companies using fake documents. The assessee had transacted with these entities. The Tribunal sustained 6% addition on bogus purchases following precedent but deleted additions under Section 69 for unexplained loans as transactions were properly recorded in books. Regarding penny stock transactions, the Tribunal upheld CIT(A)&#039;s deletion of additions, noting payments were made from disclosed bank accounts and resulted in losses rather than unexplained investments.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 10 Jul 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=755911</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>