<?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>2008 (3) TMI 323 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=35060</link>
    <description>HC upheld the Tribunal&#039;s order sustaining additions for unexplained purchases and undisclosed income in favor of the revenue. The apparent sellers who issued invoices were untraceable and had not actually supplied the goods; the assessee received goods from other unidentified parties. Although payments were shown as made by account payee cheques, the cheques were deposited in bank accounts in the names of the supposed sellers and then fully withdrawn in cash through bearer cheques, with no identifiable recipient. On these facts, HC held that the Tribunal had correctly treated the purchase price as inflated and the transactions as non-genuine, requiring no interference.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 04 Mar 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 20 Nov 2025 16:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=73666" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (3) TMI 323 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=35060</link>
      <description>HC upheld the Tribunal&#039;s order sustaining additions for unexplained purchases and undisclosed income in favor of the revenue. The apparent sellers who issued invoices were untraceable and had not actually supplied the goods; the assessee received goods from other unidentified parties. Although payments were shown as made by account payee cheques, the cheques were deposited in bank accounts in the names of the supposed sellers and then fully withdrawn in cash through bearer cheques, with no identifiable recipient. On these facts, HC held that the Tribunal had correctly treated the purchase price as inflated and the transactions as non-genuine, requiring no interference.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 04 Mar 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=35060</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>