<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2015 (3) TMI 970 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=258036</link>
    <description>Regular books of account and stock records carry a presumption of correctness, and that presumption was not displaced here because the Revenue failed to make meaningful contemporaneous verification of stock position, corresponding records, or source documents. The assessee&#039;s explanation that the goods were moved as an inter-distributor accommodation with matching purchase and sale entries was commercially plausible and consistent with the records. A bare denial by the other party, without supporting inquiry, was insufficient to reject the accounts under section 145(3) or sustain disallowance of the purchase entries. The addition based on alleged bogus purchases could not be sustained, and the assessee&#039;s account-based explanation prevailed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 09 Jul 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 30 Mar 2015 06:01:04 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=379933" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (3) TMI 970 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=258036</link>
      <description>Regular books of account and stock records carry a presumption of correctness, and that presumption was not displaced here because the Revenue failed to make meaningful contemporaneous verification of stock position, corresponding records, or source documents. The assessee&#039;s explanation that the goods were moved as an inter-distributor accommodation with matching purchase and sale entries was commercially plausible and consistent with the records. A bare denial by the other party, without supporting inquiry, was insufficient to reject the accounts under section 145(3) or sustain disallowance of the purchase entries. The addition based on alleged bogus purchases could not be sustained, and the assessee&#039;s account-based explanation prevailed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 09 Jul 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=258036</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>