https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=290188 In tax-avoidance disputes, the revenue must prove by material and reasonable inference that the dominant purpose of a transaction was to evade tax. Mere failure by the assessee to offer a satisfactory explanation does not, by itself, establish the requisite avoidance motive. Applying that principle, the court treated the family partition and subsequent reconstitution of the business as arising from an actual family arrangement and differing proprietary interests, not as proof of a main object to reduce excess profits tax liability. On the facts found, there was no material supporting a finding of tax avoidance, and the reference was answered in favour of the assessee. en-us Tue, 25 Apr 1950 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 12 Sep 2020 12:21:11 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=290188 In tax-avoidance disputes, the revenue must prove by material and reasonable inference that the dominant purpose of a transaction was to evade tax. Mere failure by the assessee to offer a satisfactory explanation does not, by itself, establish the requisite avoidance motive. Applying that principle, the court treated the family partition and subsequent reconstitution of the business as arising from an actual family arrangement and differing proprietary interests, not as proof of a main object to reduce excess profits tax liability. On the facts found, there was no material supporting a finding of tax avoidance, and the reference was answered in favour of the assessee. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 25 Apr 1950 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=290188