<?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 830 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766283</link>
    <description>Penalty under section 271(1)(c) may be sustained where additions arise from bogus purchases and the quantum is restricted to the profit element embedded in those purchases. On the stated facts, the restricted addition was treated as concealed income to the extent of the undisclosed profit generated through the bogus purchases, rather than a mere abstract estimate. The penalty was therefore upheld and the assessee&#039;s challenge failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 19 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 24 Jun 2026 17:27:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=800174" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (2) TMI 830 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766283</link>
      <description>Penalty under section 271(1)(c) may be sustained where additions arise from bogus purchases and the quantum is restricted to the profit element embedded in those purchases. On the stated facts, the restricted addition was treated as concealed income to the extent of the undisclosed profit generated through the bogus purchases, rather than a mere abstract estimate. The penalty was therefore upheld and the assessee&#039;s challenge failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 19 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766283</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>