https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=327938 The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's Miscellaneous Application seeking rectification of alleged mistakes in its order, emphasizing that such a request amounted to a review not permitted by law. The Tribunal upheld the addition of Rs. 17,23,824 out of the Rs. 28 lakhs admitted as peak investment in unaccounted transactions, finding no double taxation as the amount related to unaccounted debtors was already included. Additionally, the Tribunal rejected the argument that the excess cash declared included the peak investment, maintaining that the amounts were separate. en-us Mon, 11 Apr 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 23 May 2016 09:56:06 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=327938 The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's Miscellaneous Application seeking rectification of alleged mistakes in its order, emphasizing that such a request amounted to a review not permitted by law. The Tribunal upheld the addition of Rs. 17,23,824 out of the Rs. 28 lakhs admitted as peak investment in unaccounted transactions, finding no double taxation as the amount related to unaccounted debtors was already included. Additionally, the Tribunal rejected the argument that the excess cash declared included the peak investment, maintaining that the amounts were separate. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 11 Apr 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=327938