Necessary-party requirements limit impleadment of independent entities, while deferred consideration does not create an appealable adverse determinati...
Food supplement classification requires common parlance and authoritative tests, preventing treatment as proprietary Ayurvedic medicines without suppo...
Specified regulatory authority income receives conditional tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income character, and return f...
Tax exemption for regulatory authority income applies retrospectively, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-filing...
Input tax credit conditions remain constitutionally valid, with eligible recipient claims considered under GST circulars and retrospective filing dead...
The High Court held that once the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) found no cogent or convincing evidence from the Revenue to allege bogus purchases, it was wrong to expect the assessee to prove its innocence. The ITAT erred in upholding the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT-A)'s ad hoc disallowance of 10% of the total purchases as bogus, without analyzing the reasonableness or justification for such disallowance. The ITAT's approach of adopting a middle ground by endorsing the 10% disallowance, despite finding no cogent evidence from the Revenue, gave credence to the proposition that the law can demand proof of the negative from the assessee. The High Court opined that such an approach is repugnant and cannot be endorsed as a process known to law to disallow expenses on the premise of being bogus. Consequently, the High Court ruled in favor of the assessee and against the Revenue.
The High Court held that once the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) found no cogent or convincing evidence from the Revenue to allege bogus purchases, it was wrong to expect the assessee to prove its innocence. The ITAT erred in upholding the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT-A)'s ad hoc disallowance of 10% of the total purchases as bogus, without analyzing the reasonableness or justification for such disallowance. The ITAT's approach of adopting a middle ground by endorsing the 10% disallowance, despite finding no cogent evidence from the Revenue, gave credence to the proposition that the law can demand proof of the negative from the assessee. The High Court opined that such an approach is repugnant and cannot be endorsed as a process known to law to disallow expenses on the premise of being bogus. Consequently, the High Court ruled in favor of the assessee and against the Revenue.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
