Arrest safeguards and transit remand requirements invalidated detention following inter-State transfer without communicated grounds or magistrate auth...
Arrest safeguards require disclosed grounds, relative intimation and transit remand, while duplicate prosecution under the CGST framework is unsustain...
Document Identification Number defects can invalidate GST assessments, with delayed challenges entertained conditionally where patent irregularities e...
Windmill commissioning evidence supported higher depreciation where grid connection and electricity generation proved operational use before the relev...
Pharmaceutical promotion and transfer-pricing comparability principles limited disallowances, while uncorroborated search allegations and unsupported ...
Business expenditure substantiation supports scrap credits, statutory payments and expense claims, while depreciation requires proof of actual busines...
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 
