https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=392542 The ITAT dismissed both appeals by the Revenue, upholding the Ld.CIT(Appeals) decisions for the assessment year 2008-09. The first appeal involved the deletion of an addition for unexplained investment, emphasizing that no addition is warranted when physical stock is less than book stock, only gross profit should be considered. The second appeal focused on the deletion of a penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, highlighting the necessity of specifying the charge for penalty imposition. The judgments underscored the importance of clarity and specificity in legal proceedings under the Income Tax Act, 1961. en-us Wed, 19 Feb 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 22 Feb 2020 18:03:31 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=392542 The ITAT dismissed both appeals by the Revenue, upholding the Ld.CIT(Appeals) decisions for the assessment year 2008-09. The first appeal involved the deletion of an addition for unexplained investment, emphasizing that no addition is warranted when physical stock is less than book stock, only gross profit should be considered. The second appeal focused on the deletion of a penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, highlighting the necessity of specifying the charge for penalty imposition. The judgments underscored the importance of clarity and specificity in legal proceedings under the Income Tax Act, 1961. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 19 Feb 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=392542