https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=219613 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, quashing the order under Section 263 due to jurisdictional errors. The Tribunal also found issues such as stock shortage valuation, unexplained investment in the factory building, and verification of various accounts had already been adequately addressed by the Assessing Officer and CIT(A), leading to the dismissal of the CIT's order. The ad hoc disallowance of expenses was not pressed by the assessee. As a result, the appeal of the assessee was partly allowed in one case and fully allowed in another. en-us Fri, 20 Jul 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 19 Dec 2012 11:37:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=219613 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, quashing the order under Section 263 due to jurisdictional errors. The Tribunal also found issues such as stock shortage valuation, unexplained investment in the factory building, and verification of various accounts had already been adequately addressed by the Assessing Officer and CIT(A), leading to the dismissal of the CIT's order. The ad hoc disallowance of expenses was not pressed by the assessee. As a result, the appeal of the assessee was partly allowed in one case and fully allowed in another. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 20 Jul 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=219613