<?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 (6) TMI 1929 - ITAT BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=773816</link>
    <description>Bonafide reliance on professional advice was treated as sufficient cause for condoning a 65-day delay, where the assessee supported the explanation with an affidavit and a chartered accountant&#039;s certificate and the Revenue did not effectively dispute the facts. In a presumptive taxation assessment under section 44AD, an addition for alleged bogus purchases was held unsustainable where it rested only on GST information, despite the assessee producing purchase details and supporting material. The absence of independent enquiry or contrary evidence meant the disallowance could not be upheld, and the purchase addition was directed to be deleted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 25 Jun 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 28 Jun 2025 08:31:58 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=832242" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (6) TMI 1929 - ITAT BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=773816</link>
      <description>Bonafide reliance on professional advice was treated as sufficient cause for condoning a 65-day delay, where the assessee supported the explanation with an affidavit and a chartered accountant&#039;s certificate and the Revenue did not effectively dispute the facts. In a presumptive taxation assessment under section 44AD, an addition for alleged bogus purchases was held unsustainable where it rested only on GST information, despite the assessee producing purchase details and supporting material. The absence of independent enquiry or contrary evidence meant the disallowance could not be upheld, and the purchase addition was directed to be deleted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 25 Jun 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=773816</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>