<?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 (4) TMI 1208 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=769294</link>
    <description>ITAT Mumbai ruled in favor of the assessee regarding alleged bogus purchases. The AO disallowed entire purchases based solely on an investigation wing report without conducting independent inquiry or finding fault with supporting documents. The tribunal held that investigation reports alone cannot justify additions without proper verification. Following Ashok Kumar Rungta precedent, the AO cannot make additions based on suspicion without independent inquiry and providing adequate opportunity to the assessee to respond.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 17 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 23 Apr 2025 09:09:32 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=816545" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (4) TMI 1208 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=769294</link>
      <description>ITAT Mumbai ruled in favor of the assessee regarding alleged bogus purchases. The AO disallowed entire purchases based solely on an investigation wing report without conducting independent inquiry or finding fault with supporting documents. The tribunal held that investigation reports alone cannot justify additions without proper verification. Following Ashok Kumar Rungta precedent, the AO cannot make additions based on suspicion without independent inquiry and providing adequate opportunity to the assessee to respond.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 17 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=769294</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>