Transaction value rejection requires reliable corroboration; refundable VAT is excluded and temporary registration does not defeat new-vehicle exempti...
Appellate jurisdiction remains available where a wrist-worn gold ornament cannot conclusively be characterised as imported baggage at the preliminary ...
Written complaint requirement bars cognizance on police reports for securities offences, while unsupported breach of trust and cheating allegations fa...
Risk-based postal import clearance standardises electronic assessment, document requests, duty realisation and delivery controls at Foreign Post Offic...
Customs Cargo Service Provider appointment extends custodianship to additional terminal land, subject to cargo-control, security and licence condition...
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 4788
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
