<?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 (3) TMI 1757 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=469366</link>
    <description>Bullion transactions were examined under section 43(5) of the Income-tax Act to determine whether they were speculative. The Tribunal noted that the genuineness of the transactions had already attained finality in the earlier round and that the assessee had produced purchase and sale invoices, delivery challans, contract notes, bank statements, confirmations, PAN details and other party particulars. As the commodities were actually delivered, the dealings fell outside the scope of speculative transactions. The Tribunal also noted that one director of the purchasing entity appeared and confirmed the transactions, and that the assessee could not be faulted for the non-appearance of all parties. The addition was directed to be deleted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 05 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 15 Jun 2026 23:25:07 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=907100" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (3) TMI 1757 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=469366</link>
      <description>Bullion transactions were examined under section 43(5) of the Income-tax Act to determine whether they were speculative. The Tribunal noted that the genuineness of the transactions had already attained finality in the earlier round and that the assessee had produced purchase and sale invoices, delivery challans, contract notes, bank statements, confirmations, PAN details and other party particulars. As the commodities were actually delivered, the dealings fell outside the scope of speculative transactions. The Tribunal also noted that one director of the purchasing entity appeared and confirmed the transactions, and that the assessee could not be faulted for the non-appearance of all parties. The addition was directed to be deleted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 05 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=469366</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>