<?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 (12) TMI 784 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783244</link>
    <description>ITAT Mumbai dismissed Revenue&#039;s appeal and upheld the Commissioner&#039;s order restricting addition on alleged bogus purchases to 3% of such purchases, instead of 100% disallowance made by the AO. The Tribunal noted that the assessee discharged its prima facie onus by producing purchase bills, ledger accounts, payment proofs, and other supporting documentation, and that statements of alleged accommodation entry providers had been retracted. It distinguished the SC decision in Drisha Impex (P) Ltd as factually inapplicable, since in that case the assessee failed to furnish confirmations or supplier details. For substantial justice and to prevent possible revenue leakage, a 3% estimation was sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 28 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 12 Dec 2025 08:55:16 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=870994" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (12) TMI 784 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783244</link>
      <description>ITAT Mumbai dismissed Revenue&#039;s appeal and upheld the Commissioner&#039;s order restricting addition on alleged bogus purchases to 3% of such purchases, instead of 100% disallowance made by the AO. The Tribunal noted that the assessee discharged its prima facie onus by producing purchase bills, ledger accounts, payment proofs, and other supporting documentation, and that statements of alleged accommodation entry providers had been retracted. It distinguished the SC decision in Drisha Impex (P) Ltd as factually inapplicable, since in that case the assessee failed to furnish confirmations or supplier details. For substantial justice and to prevent possible revenue leakage, a 3% estimation was sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 28 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783244</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>