https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=284629 The appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes. The AO's jurisdiction under section 147 was upheld as valid. The addition of Rs. 54.05 lakhs was remitted back to the AO for reevaluation using the peak credit method due to lack of evidence. The charging of interest under sections 234A and 234B was considered consequential. The claim for costs and refund of institution fees was dismissed. The Tribunal directed the AO to reevaluate taxable income based on peak credit method, providing the assessee with a fair hearing opportunity. en-us Wed, 30 Dec 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 30 Nov 2019 15:29:05 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=284629 The appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes. The AO's jurisdiction under section 147 was upheld as valid. The addition of Rs. 54.05 lakhs was remitted back to the AO for reevaluation using the peak credit method due to lack of evidence. The charging of interest under sections 234A and 234B was considered consequential. The claim for costs and refund of institution fees was dismissed. The Tribunal directed the AO to reevaluate taxable income based on peak credit method, providing the assessee with a fair hearing opportunity. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 30 Dec 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=284629