<?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 (7) TMI 2045 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458751</link>
    <description>The ITAT Mumbai allowed the assessee&#039;s appeal for statistical purposes in a case involving bogus purchases from Bhanwarlal Jain concerns. The AO had estimated profit at 5% of total purchases, which CIT(A) reduced to 3%. Following the Bombay HC precedent in Mohommad Haji Adam Co, ITAT directed the AO to restrict additions only to equalize the gross profit rate on alleged bogus purchases with genuine purchases declared by the assessee, requiring verification of records and additional information from the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 31 Jul 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 14 Nov 2024 19:06:08 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=777827" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (7) TMI 2045 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458751</link>
      <description>The ITAT Mumbai allowed the assessee&#039;s appeal for statistical purposes in a case involving bogus purchases from Bhanwarlal Jain concerns. The AO had estimated profit at 5% of total purchases, which CIT(A) reduced to 3%. Following the Bombay HC precedent in Mohommad Haji Adam Co, ITAT directed the AO to restrict additions only to equalize the gross profit rate on alleged bogus purchases with genuine purchases declared by the assessee, requiring verification of records and additional information from the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 31 Jul 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458751</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>