https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42612 Documentary proof that an article was possessed for the prescribed period under the Transfer of Residence Rules cannot be rejected merely because the item appears new. Here, the petitioner relied on a purchase voucher dated 23 June 1987, which the authorities did not disbelieve or reject. The adverse finding that the V.C.R. model had been launched only a few months earlier was unsupported by evidence. On that basis, the denial of transfer of residence concession lacked a valid evidentiary foundation and was unjustified; the petitioner was entitled to the benefit. en-us Mon, 18 Sep 1989 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 12 Jun 2010 12:15:12 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42612 Documentary proof that an article was possessed for the prescribed period under the Transfer of Residence Rules cannot be rejected merely because the item appears new. Here, the petitioner relied on a purchase voucher dated 23 June 1987, which the authorities did not disbelieve or reject. The adverse finding that the V.C.R. model had been launched only a few months earlier was unsupported by evidence. On that basis, the denial of transfer of residence concession lacked a valid evidentiary foundation and was unjustified; the petitioner was entitled to the benefit. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 18 Sep 1989 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42612