https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=755236 Refund of an alleged larger advance failed because the disputed additional payment was not proved by cogent evidence. The Court accepted that the initial advance of Rs. 3,00,000 was established, but held that the claimed further payment of Rs. 15,00,000 rested only on the plaintiff's testimony, lacked independent corroboration, and was not supported by the contemporaneous notice or a reliable endorsement. The refund claim therefore had to stand on proof of the total advance asserted, and the finding that only Rs. 3,00,000 was proved was upheld. en-us Mon, 08 Jul 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 10 Jul 2024 07:59:35 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=755236 Refund of an alleged larger advance failed because the disputed additional payment was not proved by cogent evidence. The Court accepted that the initial advance of Rs. 3,00,000 was established, but held that the claimed further payment of Rs. 15,00,000 rested only on the plaintiff's testimony, lacked independent corroboration, and was not supported by the contemporaneous notice or a reliable endorsement. The refund claim therefore had to stand on proof of the total advance asserted, and the finding that only Rs. 3,00,000 was proved was upheld. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 08 Jul 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=755236