https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=75924 Dispute concerns whether books of a travel and tourism operator could be rejected under Section 145(3) for alleged defects. The legal basis is that Revenue bears the onus to prove books are incorrect or incomplete or that the accounting method prevents deduction of true profits; finding that no mandated accounting standard applied and that absence of formal foreign agreements did not render accounts incomplete, accounts could not be rejected. Unverified individual expenses may be disallowed separately, but that does not justify wholesale rejection of accounts. Tribunal fact findings were unchallenged as perverse; therefore the appeal failed. en-us Wed, 28 Apr 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 29 Jan 2026 17:29:52 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=75924 Dispute concerns whether books of a travel and tourism operator could be rejected under Section 145(3) for alleged defects. The legal basis is that Revenue bears the onus to prove books are incorrect or incomplete or that the accounting method prevents deduction of true profits; finding that no mandated accounting standard applied and that absence of formal foreign agreements did not render accounts incomplete, accounts could not be rejected. Unverified individual expenses may be disallowed separately, but that does not justify wholesale rejection of accounts. Tribunal fact findings were unchallenged as perverse; therefore the appeal failed. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 28 Apr 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=75924