https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783681 Reopening within four years was upheld because the AO need not quantify escapement in recorded reasons, and the reasons sufficiently covered scrutiny of transactions with a second supplier; consequently, the assessee's objection that no addition could be made for purchases from that supplier was rejected. On the genuineness of purchases from that supplier, the ITAT held that only profit element, not the entire purchase, was liable to be brought to tax; the AO was directed to estimate additional profit at 5% above the GP rate disclosed for the year, after granting hearing, resulting in partial relief to the assessee. en-us Tue, 16 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 20 Dec 2025 07:45:33 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783681 Reopening within four years was upheld because the AO need not quantify escapement in recorded reasons, and the reasons sufficiently covered scrutiny of transactions with a second supplier; consequently, the assessee's objection that no addition could be made for purchases from that supplier was rejected. On the genuineness of purchases from that supplier, the ITAT held that only profit element, not the entire purchase, was liable to be brought to tax; the AO was directed to estimate additional profit at 5% above the GP rate disclosed for the year, after granting hearing, resulting in partial relief to the assessee. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 16 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783681