https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=346014 An addition for stock discrepancy under the Income-tax Act cannot be sustained merely because a higher stock figure was furnished to a bank for hypothecation, where the assessee maintained day-to-day books, purchases and sales were vouched, the accounts were audited, and no defect or suppression was found. In the absence of material showing actual unaccounted stock, the books of account remained relevant evidence of regular business records, so the stock-difference addition was deleted and the departmental challenge failed. en-us Tue, 11 Apr 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 02 Aug 2017 08:39:36 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=346014 An addition for stock discrepancy under the Income-tax Act cannot be sustained merely because a higher stock figure was furnished to a bank for hypothecation, where the assessee maintained day-to-day books, purchases and sales were vouched, the accounts were audited, and no defect or suppression was found. In the absence of material showing actual unaccounted stock, the books of account remained relevant evidence of regular business records, so the stock-difference addition was deleted and the departmental challenge failed. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 11 Apr 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=346014