<?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 (9) TMI 956 - ITAT PUNE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=758712</link>
    <description>ITAT Pune upheld the AO&#039;s reopening of assessment under section 147 despite CIT(A)&#039;s finding that reasons merely stated &quot;needs to be verified.&quot; The tribunal held that AO had properly recorded satisfaction regarding income escapement of Rs. 1,68,24,239/- and suppressed gross profit based on ledger analysis. Relying on Raymond Woollen Mills SC precedent, the tribunal emphasized that reasons must be read in totality and mere mention of &quot;verification&quot; doesn&#039;t vitiate entire reasoning. The AO demonstrated prima-facie satisfaction based on material evidence of purchase-sales discrepancies. Decision favored revenue, reversing CIT(A)&#039;s order.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 30 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 17 Sep 2024 11:49:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=768703" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (9) TMI 956 - ITAT PUNE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=758712</link>
      <description>ITAT Pune upheld the AO&#039;s reopening of assessment under section 147 despite CIT(A)&#039;s finding that reasons merely stated &quot;needs to be verified.&quot; The tribunal held that AO had properly recorded satisfaction regarding income escapement of Rs. 1,68,24,239/- and suppressed gross profit based on ledger analysis. Relying on Raymond Woollen Mills SC precedent, the tribunal emphasized that reasons must be read in totality and mere mention of &quot;verification&quot; doesn&#039;t vitiate entire reasoning. The AO demonstrated prima-facie satisfaction based on material evidence of purchase-sales discrepancies. Decision favored revenue, reversing CIT(A)&#039;s order.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 30 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=758712</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>