https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=68347 The Tribunal upheld the addition made on account of shortages in various items, stating the burden of proof lies on the assessee. However, the Tribunal directed the AO to delete the additions related to shortages in Loha taxable goods. The addition made on account of undervaluation of closing stock was confirmed by the CIT(A) but was later deleted by the Tribunal due to insufficient justification. The addition made by estimating sales and applying a G.P. rate was also rejected by the Tribunal, concluding that no separate addition was warranted. Ultimately, the Tribunal partly allowed the appeal and directed the AO to delete certain additions. en-us Tue, 18 Apr 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 03 Sep 2011 18:30:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=68347 The Tribunal upheld the addition made on account of shortages in various items, stating the burden of proof lies on the assessee. However, the Tribunal directed the AO to delete the additions related to shortages in Loha taxable goods. The addition made on account of undervaluation of closing stock was confirmed by the CIT(A) but was later deleted by the Tribunal due to insufficient justification. The addition made by estimating sales and applying a G.P. rate was also rejected by the Tribunal, concluding that no separate addition was warranted. Ultimately, the Tribunal partly allowed the appeal and directed the AO to delete certain additions. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 18 Apr 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=68347