<?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>Rs.5.19 crore addition under ss.69A/69C set aside due to distorted figures and corroborating VAT returns</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=92839</link>
    <description>ITAT vacated and set aside the addition of Rs. 5.19 crore made by the AO under ss. 69A/69C, holding that the impugned quantitative discrepancies in purchases, sales and closing stock arose from the AO&#039;s failure to appreciate that the opening stock of the parent item included branded sub-stock, and from adoption of distorted figures. The Tribunal found the assessee&#039;s VAT return summaries corroborated the reported purchases and sales for FY 2016-17 and concluded the AO&#039;s adverse inferences lacked basis. Consequently, the CIT(A)&#039;s order sustaining the addition was quashed and the appeal of the assessee was allowed, with the impugned assessment addition vacated.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 25 Sep 2025 08:37:32 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 25 Sep 2025 08:37:33 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=854430" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Rs.5.19 crore addition under ss.69A/69C set aside due to distorted figures and corroborating VAT returns</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=92839</link>
      <description>ITAT vacated and set aside the addition of Rs. 5.19 crore made by the AO under ss. 69A/69C, holding that the impugned quantitative discrepancies in purchases, sales and closing stock arose from the AO&#039;s failure to appreciate that the opening stock of the parent item included branded sub-stock, and from adoption of distorted figures. The Tribunal found the assessee&#039;s VAT return summaries corroborated the reported purchases and sales for FY 2016-17 and concluded the AO&#039;s adverse inferences lacked basis. Consequently, the CIT(A)&#039;s order sustaining the addition was quashed and the appeal of the assessee was allowed, with the impugned assessment addition vacated.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 25 Sep 2025 08:37:32 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=92839</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>