Independent show-cause notices remain separate proceedings, while customs adjudication challenges should ordinarily follow the statutory appellate rem...
Institutional incapacity in customs settlement proceedings excludes non-functional quorum periods from statutory disposal timelines, preventing automa...
Interactive touchscreen panels with integrated computing functions fall under automatic data-processing machines rather than display monitors for cust...
Ex parte injunction service requirements were substantially met, while civil recovery and SFIO investigation into provident fund defalcation continued...
Enforcement of resolution-plan directions continues without a Supreme Court stay, preventing suspension of redistribution and escrowed-fund distributi...
Third-party ownership claims over attached property require Special Court adjudication where purchasers lack registered sale deeds and bona fides rema...
Pure-agent reimbursements in clearing and forwarding services are excluded from taxable value when qualifying third-party payments are properly record...
The ITAT Hyderabad held that the addition of bogus purchases based on information from the Investigation Wing was not justified. The burden of proof shifted to the AO once the assessee provided documents and payments for the purchases. The AO should have examined the entities involved and provided evidence if the invoices were not genuine. The Revenue failed to present positive evidence against the genuineness of the purchases. The Tribunal emphasized that accepted sales and taxes paid by the assessee made it difficult to argue against the genuineness of purchases. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's argument and cited legal precedents supporting the assessee's case. The right to cross-examine is a fundamental aspect of natural justice, and failure to provide this opportunity violates principles of fair play. The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee based on these considerations.
The ITAT Hyderabad held that the addition of bogus purchases based on information from the Investigation Wing was not justified. The burden of proof shifted to the AO once the assessee provided documents and payments for the purchases. The AO should have examined the entities involved and provided evidence if the invoices were not genuine. The Revenue failed to present positive evidence against the genuineness of the purchases. The Tribunal emphasized that accepted sales and taxes paid by the assessee made it difficult to argue against the genuineness of purchases. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's argument and cited legal precedents supporting the assessee's case. The right to cross-examine is a fundamental aspect of natural justice, and failure to provide this opportunity violates principles of fair play. The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee based on these considerations.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4782
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
