https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277512 The court upheld the findings of the Intelligence Officer, Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), and the Appellate Tribunal, concluding that the petitioner acted as a name lender for others and failed to provide evidence of actual ownership. The turnover estimates based on gas agency and co-operative society data were deemed valid, with the court finding no prejudice in the absence of cross-examination. The penalty imposed, reduced by the Appellate Tribunal, was upheld as justified due to the petitioner's tax evasion practices. Both revision petitions were dismissed for lack of merit. en-us Tue, 04 Oct 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 06 Dec 2018 13:23:52 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277512 The court upheld the findings of the Intelligence Officer, Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), and the Appellate Tribunal, concluding that the petitioner acted as a name lender for others and failed to provide evidence of actual ownership. The turnover estimates based on gas agency and co-operative society data were deemed valid, with the court finding no prejudice in the absence of cross-examination. The penalty imposed, reduced by the Appellate Tribunal, was upheld as justified due to the petitioner's tax evasion practices. Both revision petitions were dismissed for lack of merit. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Tue, 04 Oct 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277512