<?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 (8) TMI 1108 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=776920</link>
    <description>ITAT allowed the assessee&#039;s appeal and set aside the CIT(A) order sustaining additions for alleged bogus purchases. The tribunal found that, without clarification from the assessee or any independent inquiry by Revenue, the purchases were returned and their financial impact reversed in the assessee&#039;s books, so no addition or disallowance was warranted. The estimated addition made by the AO was deleted; other contentions were rendered academic by the deletion.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 18 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 19 Aug 2025 15:19:30 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=844787" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (8) TMI 1108 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=776920</link>
      <description>ITAT allowed the assessee&#039;s appeal and set aside the CIT(A) order sustaining additions for alleged bogus purchases. The tribunal found that, without clarification from the assessee or any independent inquiry by Revenue, the purchases were returned and their financial impact reversed in the assessee&#039;s books, so no addition or disallowance was warranted. The estimated addition made by the AO was deleted; other contentions were rendered academic by the deletion.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 18 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=776920</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>