https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=249433 The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, ruling that the Assessing Officer was unjustified in adding Rs. 88,35,349 under Section 69B of the Income Tax Act based on estimated average market value. The Tribunal found the AO's valuation method flawed and lacking evidence. The appeal by the revenue was dismissed, affirming the deletion of the addition. The Tribunal emphasized that closing stock valuation should be based on cost or market value, with the burden of proof on the AO for undisclosed investments. en-us Fri, 20 Jun 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 10 Jul 2014 08:38:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=249433 The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, ruling that the Assessing Officer was unjustified in adding Rs. 88,35,349 under Section 69B of the Income Tax Act based on estimated average market value. The Tribunal found the AO's valuation method flawed and lacking evidence. The appeal by the revenue was dismissed, affirming the deletion of the addition. The Tribunal emphasized that closing stock valuation should be based on cost or market value, with the burden of proof on the AO for undisclosed investments. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 20 Jun 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=249433