<?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 (3) TMI 309 - SC Order</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766924</link>
    <description>In disputes over bogus purchases and accommodation bills, the stated principle is that a trader&#039;s purchases should not be rejected without disturbing the corresponding sales, and any addition should be limited to bringing the gross profit rate on such purchases in line with genuine purchases. The Special Leave Petition mentioned was dismissed both for a 628-day delay and on merits, following the same approach adopted in the cited prior order.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 03 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 03 Aug 2026 10:36:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=804266" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (3) TMI 309 - SC Order</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766924</link>
      <description>In disputes over bogus purchases and accommodation bills, the stated principle is that a trader&#039;s purchases should not be rejected without disturbing the corresponding sales, and any addition should be limited to bringing the gross profit rate on such purchases in line with genuine purchases. The Special Leave Petition mentioned was dismissed both for a 628-day delay and on merits, following the same approach adopted in the cited prior order.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 03 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766924</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>