https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782737 ITAT Mumbai set aside the addition for alleged bogus purchases, holding that the AO and CIT(A) erred in relying solely on DGIT (Inv.) information without properly considering documentary evidence produced by the assessee. The Tribunal observed that the assessee's claim of genuine, back-to-back contract transactions with the supplier required factual verification. The matter was remanded to the AO to re-examine all evidences, verify the genuineness of transactions, and pass a speaking order after affording adequate opportunity of hearing. Consequently, the prior estimation of 12.5% profit on disputed purchases was treated as academic and not adjudicated on merits. en-us Tue, 11 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 01 Dec 2025 14:46:37 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782737 ITAT Mumbai set aside the addition for alleged bogus purchases, holding that the AO and CIT(A) erred in relying solely on DGIT (Inv.) information without properly considering documentary evidence produced by the assessee. The Tribunal observed that the assessee's claim of genuine, back-to-back contract transactions with the supplier required factual verification. The matter was remanded to the AO to re-examine all evidences, verify the genuineness of transactions, and pass a speaking order after affording adequate opportunity of hearing. Consequently, the prior estimation of 12.5% profit on disputed purchases was treated as academic and not adjudicated on merits. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 11 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782737