<?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>2026 (7) TMI 1440 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=795554</link>
    <description>Trading account-based stock verification may support a best judgment assessment where other verification methods are impracticable, as comparison of purchases, sales, book stock and physical stock can reveal suppression. Equal addition for probable omission requires supporting material rather than guesswork; failure to maintain purchase accounts and the prescribed Form-H register, substantial unexplained stock variation, and the absence of a suppression pattern did not preclude an inference of deliberate suppression. Penalty requires recorded satisfaction of wilful non-disclosure, which may be established by deficient records, significant stock discrepancies, and lack of explanation. The notes state that these circumstances supported restoration of equal addition and penalty.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 06 Jul 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 24 Jul 2026 08:36:17 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=913386" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (7) TMI 1440 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=795554</link>
      <description>Trading account-based stock verification may support a best judgment assessment where other verification methods are impracticable, as comparison of purchases, sales, book stock and physical stock can reveal suppression. Equal addition for probable omission requires supporting material rather than guesswork; failure to maintain purchase accounts and the prescribed Form-H register, substantial unexplained stock variation, and the absence of a suppression pattern did not preclude an inference of deliberate suppression. Penalty requires recorded satisfaction of wilful non-disclosure, which may be established by deficient records, significant stock discrepancies, and lack of explanation. The notes state that these circumstances supported restoration of equal addition and penalty.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT / Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 06 Jul 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=795554</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>