<?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>2025 (2) TMI 575 - ITAT PUNE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766029</link>
    <description>The ITAT Pune partially allowed the assessee&#039;s appeal against profit estimation on alleged cash purchases. While the AO estimated profit applicable to retailer traders, the tribunal found the assessee was engaged in livestock transportation business earning commission per kg. The tribunal applied 1.50% net profit rate on turnover of Rs. 2,85,94,760, calculating profit at Rs. 4,28,921. Since the assessee had already offered Rs. 3,50,828 profit in returns, only the excess amount of Rs. 78,093 was sustained as addition.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 12 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 15 Feb 2025 08:00:45 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=798475" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (2) TMI 575 - ITAT PUNE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766029</link>
      <description>The ITAT Pune partially allowed the assessee&#039;s appeal against profit estimation on alleged cash purchases. While the AO estimated profit applicable to retailer traders, the tribunal found the assessee was engaged in livestock transportation business earning commission per kg. The tribunal applied 1.50% net profit rate on turnover of Rs. 2,85,94,760, calculating profit at Rs. 4,28,921. Since the assessee had already offered Rs. 3,50,828 profit in returns, only the excess amount of Rs. 78,093 was sustained as addition.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 12 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766029</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>