<?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 1193 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=793812</link>
    <description>Where purchases were supported in part by transportation receipts, octroi receipts and other documents, the Tribunal treated them as partly genuine and confined the addition to 25% of the purchase amount. The High Court found that the concurrent factual findings did not show perversity or any legal error, and therefore no substantial question of law arose for interference in appeal. The restriction of the addition to 25% was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 17 Jun 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 24 Jun 2026 07:08:04 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=908384" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (6) TMI 1193 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=793812</link>
      <description>Where purchases were supported in part by transportation receipts, octroi receipts and other documents, the Tribunal treated them as partly genuine and confined the addition to 25% of the purchase amount. The High Court found that the concurrent factual findings did not show perversity or any legal error, and therefore no substantial question of law arose for interference in appeal. The restriction of the addition to 25% was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 17 Jun 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=793812</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>