<?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 (5) TMI 1867 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=472063</link>
    <description>Cash sales disclosed during demonetisation were accepted where sale invoices, books of account, stock registers, and VAT returns substantiated the transactions. In the absence of adverse material discrediting the explanation, concurrent factual findings accepting those sales could not be disturbed merely on suspicion. Interference in an income-tax appeal was therefore unwarranted because the findings rested on documentary evidence and no contrary material was identified.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 15 May 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 28 Sep 2026 20:02:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=926492" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (5) TMI 1867 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=472063</link>
      <description>Cash sales disclosed during demonetisation were accepted where sale invoices, books of account, stock registers, and VAT returns substantiated the transactions. In the absence of adverse material discrediting the explanation, concurrent factual findings accepting those sales could not be disturbed merely on suspicion. Interference in an income-tax appeal was therefore unwarranted because the findings rested on documentary evidence and no contrary material was identified.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 15 May 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=472063</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>