https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=325871 The Tribunal upheld that the Assessing Officer's reference to the Departmental Valuation Officer for valuation of stock-in-trade under Section 142A was invalid as the books of account were not rejected, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal. However, the Tribunal allowed the Revenue's appeal on the deletion of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for assessment year 2008-09, reinstating the penalty due to the assessee's submission of inaccurate particulars and lack of genuine expenditure evidence. en-us Fri, 22 Jan 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 31 Mar 2016 14:23:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=325871 The Tribunal upheld that the Assessing Officer's reference to the Departmental Valuation Officer for valuation of stock-in-trade under Section 142A was invalid as the books of account were not rejected, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal. However, the Tribunal allowed the Revenue's appeal on the deletion of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for assessment year 2008-09, reinstating the penalty due to the assessee's submission of inaccurate particulars and lack of genuine expenditure evidence. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 22 Jan 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=325871