<?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>2024 (10) TMI 1795 - ITAT INDORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=467978</link>
    <description>In search assessments under section 153A, completed assessments can be disturbed only where incriminating material exists for the relevant year; additions based on unrelated seized material or broad extrapolation were deleted for unabated years. The Tribunal held that gross profit and cash sales additions could not be applied to the full year on an assumed suppression ratio drawn from a limited seized period, and that recorded opening balances, employee bank entries, and similar ledger items could not be treated as unexplained income without proper enquiry and confrontation. It also deleted the excess stock addition where no quantity discrepancy was found and valuation alone was disputed, and rejected hawala-related additions as duplicative taxation of the same transactions.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 18 Oct 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Apr 2026 18:21:37 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=896239" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (10) TMI 1795 - ITAT INDORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=467978</link>
      <description>In search assessments under section 153A, completed assessments can be disturbed only where incriminating material exists for the relevant year; additions based on unrelated seized material or broad extrapolation were deleted for unabated years. The Tribunal held that gross profit and cash sales additions could not be applied to the full year on an assumed suppression ratio drawn from a limited seized period, and that recorded opening balances, employee bank entries, and similar ledger items could not be treated as unexplained income without proper enquiry and confrontation. It also deleted the excess stock addition where no quantity discrepancy was found and valuation alone was disputed, and rejected hawala-related additions as duplicative taxation of the same transactions.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 18 Oct 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=467978</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>