https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=392991 The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the disallowance to 12.5% of the total value of alleged bogus purchases, dismissing the revenue's appeal. The burden of proof was on the assessee to prove the genuineness of purchases, which they failed to do. The Tribunal emphasized taxing only real income, considering industry norms and legal precedents. The application of the Indian Evidence Act was discussed, with adverse inferences not drawn due to unexplained facts. The decision was based on evidence and business context, affirming the CIT(A)'s approach. en-us Wed, 08 Jan 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 04 Mar 2020 11:24:06 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=392991 The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the disallowance to 12.5% of the total value of alleged bogus purchases, dismissing the revenue's appeal. The burden of proof was on the assessee to prove the genuineness of purchases, which they failed to do. The Tribunal emphasized taxing only real income, considering industry norms and legal precedents. The application of the Indian Evidence Act was discussed, with adverse inferences not drawn due to unexplained facts. The decision was based on evidence and business context, affirming the CIT(A)'s approach. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 08 Jan 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=392991