Find a Lawyer

I.T.AS. NOS. 4009/LB AND 4010/LB OF 2003, DECIDED ON 19TH AUGUST, 2006. versus I.T.AS. NOS. 4009/LB AND 4010/LB OF 2003, DECIDED ON 19TH AUGUST, 2006.

Section 62 Evaluation of Accounts Production, Evidence, etc. Reject the version announced with the observation that although the purchase can be confirmed by the Government Department but the possibility of other local purchases cannot be ruled out, the cancellation of the declared version is a special one. Without explaining the reason, the tax official acknowledged that the answer was incorrect, although the purchase could be verified by the public departments, but the officer could not be rejected without bringing all other local purchases on record. It appears that there may not be another local purchase Oh. The rejection tax officer had to prove through the evidence that the purchase was suppressed and that the declared version should not be rejected by mere general observation, and if the purchase was confirmed, it would be appropriate to apply the Dundalker formula where accounts Rejected Assessing authorities needed to clarify their belief that accounts are not fraudulent and credible and that such a belief should be judged and transcended. There was no justification for seeking remand in the matter, with the first appellate authority directing the matter to be considered in a parallel manner. The instructions of the First Appellate Authority were vacated and the taxation officer was instructed to adjust the sale proportionally by considering the Dandakar formula and the applicable GPS rate as per the case history. famous supreme court advocate from Kahror Pacca lawyer