Rectification of mistake remains limited to self-evident record errors, preventing merits review through miscellaneous applications and preserving fin...
Tender creditworthiness conditions may extend to de facto Promoter Directors, with post-participation challenges generally barred absent arbitrariness...
Corporate representation in PMLA summons proceedings permitted through an authorised signatory, subject to directors' continuing cooperation and atten...
Helicopter charter classification requires effective control analysis, while territorial performance, reasoned credit orders and wilful suppression de...
Specified fund definition expands PAN exemption eligibility for registered alternative investment funds and qualifying International Financial Service...
Tax exemption for specified legal-services authority income applies retrospectively, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and...
Page of 4792
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
701 to 720 of 95833 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
