Retention of seized property survives where recorded reasons support proceeds of crime, while stayed investigation periods are excluded from limitatio...
Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
Origin Declaration authentication governs preferential tariff claims under India-UK CETA, requiring a validated reference number before import clearan...
Separate assessment orders for different years remain valid when distinct notices and hearing opportunities prevent prejudice from combined proceeding...
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 4801
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
