https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=12701 HC held the claimed deduction under s.37(1) for secret commissions was disallowed because payments were not satisfactorily proved. Vouchers were signed only by the payer's employees, recipients were not identified, and a branch manager's testimony that no such payments were made undermined the claim. The Tribunal's acceptance of the payments was found perverse and based on irrelevant reasoning. The court emphasized the assessee bears the burden of proving genuineness and quantum of such expenditures and that unsubstantiated vouchers cannot overcome public policy and evidentiary requirements. en-us Thu, 06 Jun 2002 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 30 Sep 2025 17:55:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=12701 HC held the claimed deduction under s.37(1) for secret commissions was disallowed because payments were not satisfactorily proved. Vouchers were signed only by the payer's employees, recipients were not identified, and a branch manager's testimony that no such payments were made undermined the claim. The Tribunal's acceptance of the payments was found perverse and based on irrelevant reasoning. The court emphasized the assessee bears the burden of proving genuineness and quantum of such expenditures and that unsubstantiated vouchers cannot overcome public policy and evidentiary requirements. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 06 Jun 2002 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=12701