<?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>2017 (7) TMI 752 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345640</link>
    <description>Professional misconduct findings against a chartered accountant were not sustained because the record did not support the alleged lack of verification or insufficiency of information. The High Court held that there was no reliable material showing payment beyond the CIF value or purchase vouchers, and no adverse inference could be drawn merely because the goods had been imported by the sellers. On the allegation of non-maintenance of books and records, the available evidence was found insufficient to justify an adverse inference, particularly where the relevant books were not summoned and the witness stated that the records were available at Bombay. The High Court&#039;s conclusions were accepted, and interference was declined.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 11 Jul 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 24 Jul 2017 10:05:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=482423" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (7) TMI 752 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345640</link>
      <description>Professional misconduct findings against a chartered accountant were not sustained because the record did not support the alleged lack of verification or insufficiency of information. The High Court held that there was no reliable material showing payment beyond the CIF value or purchase vouchers, and no adverse inference could be drawn merely because the goods had been imported by the sellers. On the allegation of non-maintenance of books and records, the available evidence was found insufficient to justify an adverse inference, particularly where the relevant books were not summoned and the witness stated that the records were available at Bombay. The High Court&#039;s conclusions were accepted, and interference was declined.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 11 Jul 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345640</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>