<?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 1040 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=793659</link>
    <description>ITAT Mumbai deleted additions for alleged bogus purchases and management and consultancy fees because the assessee supported both claims with contemporaneous documentary evidence. For purchases, invoices, ledger confirmations, transport records, e-way bills, bank payments and GST input-tax-credit data established genuineness; the sales were accepted, the books were not rejected, and the supplier was neither properly examined nor offered for cross-examination. For consultancy fees, tax deduction at source and payment evidence were produced, while the revenue brought no material to show that services were not rendered or that the expenditure was bogus. Additions based only on suspicion and an unverified supplier reply could not stand.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 18 Jun 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 20 Jun 2026 08:04:57 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=907896" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (6) TMI 1040 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=793659</link>
      <description>ITAT Mumbai deleted additions for alleged bogus purchases and management and consultancy fees because the assessee supported both claims with contemporaneous documentary evidence. For purchases, invoices, ledger confirmations, transport records, e-way bills, bank payments and GST input-tax-credit data established genuineness; the sales were accepted, the books were not rejected, and the supplier was neither properly examined nor offered for cross-examination. For consultancy fees, tax deduction at source and payment evidence were produced, while the revenue brought no material to show that services were not rendered or that the expenditure was bogus. Additions based only on suspicion and an unverified supplier reply could not stand.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 18 Jun 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=793659</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>