Ratification of resignation acceptance validates separation retrospectively, while withdrawal may be refused through reasoned administrative discretio...
Nature-dependent electricity contracts receive new Ind AS accounting, hedge designation, transition and financial-statement disclosure requirements fr...
Alternative GST remedy permitted protective writ intervention for ex parte adjudication, preserving independent appellate review of input tax credit d...
Assessment against deceased sole proprietor requires proceedings against the legal representative, rendering prior assessment and appellate orders inv...
Residential waste collection classification under SAC 999423 defeats composite-supply exemption where facilitating goods are not transferred to the lo...
Page of 4800
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
161 to 180 of 96000 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The appellant failed to prove the genuineness of the purchase transactions, and the goods were received from parties other than those from whom they were shown to have been purchased. The appellant deposited the input tax credit availed on the invoices from two entities, indicating that the goods were not received from those entities. The appellant inflated the expenditure by showing higher purchase prices through fictitious invoices from bogus suppliers. Since no sale can occur without purchase, and the appellant indulged in bogus purchases, a percentage of the bogus purchases can be added to arrive at the net income. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for recalculations regarding the percentage of bogus purchases and/or gross profit, after providing an opportunity to the appellant to produce relevant and admissible material, in accordance with the law.
The appellant failed to prove the genuineness of the purchase transactions, and the goods were received from parties other than those from whom they were shown to have been purchased. The appellant deposited the input tax credit availed on the invoices from two entities, indicating that the goods were not received from those entities. The appellant inflated the expenditure by showing higher purchase prices through fictitious invoices from bogus suppliers. Since no sale can occur without purchase, and the appellant indulged in bogus purchases, a percentage of the bogus purchases can be added to arrive at the net income. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for recalculations regarding the percentage of bogus purchases and/or gross profit, after providing an opportunity to the appellant to produce relevant and admissible material, in accordance with the law.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
