<?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 1171 - ITAT DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=793790</link>
    <description>ITAT Delhi discussed when alleged bogus purchases can be disallowed, holding that mere non-filing of returns by suppliers is insufficient without independent adverse material where invoices, bank payments, transport records and accepted sales support the purchases. It also noted that alleged unaccounted sales should ordinarily be taxed only to the extent of the embedded profit, and preferred net profit estimation on the facts. For alleged cash entry-fee receipts, the discussion accepted partial estimation because the assessment extrapolated a limited evidentiary period to a full year. It further applied telescoping to delete a separate unexplained-expenditure addition where income from the same activity had already been estimated and taxed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 21 May 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 24 Jun 2026 07:08:02 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=908406" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (6) TMI 1171 - ITAT DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=793790</link>
      <description>ITAT Delhi discussed when alleged bogus purchases can be disallowed, holding that mere non-filing of returns by suppliers is insufficient without independent adverse material where invoices, bank payments, transport records and accepted sales support the purchases. It also noted that alleged unaccounted sales should ordinarily be taxed only to the extent of the embedded profit, and preferred net profit estimation on the facts. For alleged cash entry-fee receipts, the discussion accepted partial estimation because the assessment extrapolated a limited evidentiary period to a full year. It further applied telescoping to delete a separate unexplained-expenditure addition where income from the same activity had already been estimated and taxed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 21 May 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=793790</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>