<?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 (5) TMI 1852 - ITAT KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=771580</link>
    <description>The HC condoned a 234-day delay in filing an appeal, finding genuine reasons related to management changes. Regarding alleged bogus purchases under section 69C, the HC partially allowed the appeal, setting aside the full addition of Rs. 42,24,191/- and directing a 2% additional gross profit levy. The court emphasized the need for cogent evidence beyond mere suspicion when challenging business transactions.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 17 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 28 May 2025 08:26:35 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=824872" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (5) TMI 1852 - ITAT KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=771580</link>
      <description>The HC condoned a 234-day delay in filing an appeal, finding genuine reasons related to management changes. Regarding alleged bogus purchases under section 69C, the HC partially allowed the appeal, setting aside the full addition of Rs. 42,24,191/- and directing a 2% additional gross profit levy. The court emphasized the need for cogent evidence beyond mere suspicion when challenging business transactions.</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=771580</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>