https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=187123 The Tribunal partially allowed both the assessee's and Revenue's cross-appeals, sustaining the addition of Rs. 12,31,471 out of the initial Rs. 41,04,903 for alleged bogus purchases. The decision highlighted the importance of the assessee providing substantial evidence to prove the genuineness of transactions, emphasizing the burden of proof on the assessee. The Tribunal aligned the disallowance with industry practices, maintaining a 2.5% profit margin and saving sales tax, ultimately emphasizing adherence to legal principles in determining the quantum of disallowance. en-us Fri, 24 Feb 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 07 May 2018 11:57:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=187123 The Tribunal partially allowed both the assessee's and Revenue's cross-appeals, sustaining the addition of Rs. 12,31,471 out of the initial Rs. 41,04,903 for alleged bogus purchases. The decision highlighted the importance of the assessee providing substantial evidence to prove the genuineness of transactions, emphasizing the burden of proof on the assessee. The Tribunal aligned the disallowance with industry practices, maintaining a 2.5% profit margin and saving sales tax, ultimately emphasizing adherence to legal principles in determining the quantum of disallowance. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 24 Feb 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=187123