<?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>2026 (6) TMI 861 - ITAT RAIPUR</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=793480</link>
    <description>After rejection of books of account, the ITAT applied parity with a comparable liquor trading case and held that the gross profit rate should be reduced to 3.13% because no distinguishing facts justified a higher estimate. It also held that once income is estimated on rejection of books, a separate ad hoc disallowance from the same trading results is not sustainable. The further disallowance from the profit and loss account was deleted and the trading addition was to be recomputed accordingly, in favour of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 25 May 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 16 Jun 2026 15:59:55 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=907365" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (6) TMI 861 - ITAT RAIPUR</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=793480</link>
      <description>After rejection of books of account, the ITAT applied parity with a comparable liquor trading case and held that the gross profit rate should be reduced to 3.13% because no distinguishing facts justified a higher estimate. It also held that once income is estimated on rejection of books, a separate ad hoc disallowance from the same trading results is not sustainable. The further disallowance from the profit and loss account was deleted and the trading addition was to be recomputed accordingly, in favour of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 25 May 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=793480</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>