https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=63331 The Tribunal held that the assessment was not time-barred under Section 142(2A) read with Section 153 of the IT Act, 1961, despite the special audit extending the assessment period. The Tribunal directed the AO to consider the addition of Rs. 31,21,041 for alleged unaccounted purchase of ferro chrome in the assessment year 1992-93 instead of 1993-94. Additionally, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to re-examine the addition of Rs. 8,67,559 for the difference in stock of M.S. Steel. The Tribunal also confirmed the addition of Rs. 2,31,960 for the closing stock of runners and risers. en-us Fri, 05 Dec 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 06 Jun 2013 10:17:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=63331 The Tribunal held that the assessment was not time-barred under Section 142(2A) read with Section 153 of the IT Act, 1961, despite the special audit extending the assessment period. The Tribunal directed the AO to consider the addition of Rs. 31,21,041 for alleged unaccounted purchase of ferro chrome in the assessment year 1992-93 instead of 1993-94. Additionally, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to re-examine the addition of Rs. 8,67,559 for the difference in stock of M.S. Steel. The Tribunal also confirmed the addition of Rs. 2,31,960 for the closing stock of runners and risers. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 05 Dec 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=63331