<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2012 (3) TMI 584 - ITAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194299</link>
    <description>Additions for alleged bogus purchases or stock could not exceed the amount actually debited to the profit and loss account in the relevant year, because the raw material and grey cloth were not fully consumed and were reflected in closing stock. The section 50C reference also required fresh examination since the statutory procedure for valuation by the DVO under section 50C(2) was not followed. The matters were restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh decision after proper verification and opportunity to the assessee. As the quantum additions were set aside, the penalty under section 271(1)(c) could not survive and was deleted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 21 Mar 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 04 Sep 2017 18:33:17 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=488074" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (3) TMI 584 - ITAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194299</link>
      <description>Additions for alleged bogus purchases or stock could not exceed the amount actually debited to the profit and loss account in the relevant year, because the raw material and grey cloth were not fully consumed and were reflected in closing stock. The section 50C reference also required fresh examination since the statutory procedure for valuation by the DVO under section 50C(2) was not followed. The matters were restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh decision after proper verification and opportunity to the assessee. As the quantum additions were set aside, the penalty under section 271(1)(c) could not survive and was deleted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 21 Mar 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194299</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>