<?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>Alleged bogus purchase invoices and s.37 expense disallowance based only on retracted third-party statement struck down</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=95202</link>
    <description>Disallowance of alleged bogus purchases/unexplained expenditure under s. 37 was held unsustainable where the AO relied solely on a third-party&#039;s subsequently retracted statement alleging invoice accommodation without delivery, without confronting or rebutting the assessee&#039;s documentary evidence. As the assessee produced recorded materials substantiating the expenditure and there was no finding of any actual purchases from the alleged biller (the group being only a transporter), and no corroborative material supporting the statement, a statement alone could not justify the addition. The disallowance was therefore deleted and the appeal of the revenue failed. - ITAT</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 19 Dec 2025 08:30:26 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 19 Dec 2025 08:30:27 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=872742" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Alleged bogus purchase invoices and s.37 expense disallowance based only on retracted third-party statement struck down</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=95202</link>
      <description>Disallowance of alleged bogus purchases/unexplained expenditure under s. 37 was held unsustainable where the AO relied solely on a third-party&#039;s subsequently retracted statement alleging invoice accommodation without delivery, without confronting or rebutting the assessee&#039;s documentary evidence. As the assessee produced recorded materials substantiating the expenditure and there was no finding of any actual purchases from the alleged biller (the group being only a transporter), and no corroborative material supporting the statement, a statement alone could not justify the addition. The disallowance was therefore deleted and the appeal of the revenue failed. - ITAT</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 19 Dec 2025 08:30:26 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=95202</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>