https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=402054 The appeal in ITA No. 4309/Mum/2017 for A.Y. 2009-10 involved a turnover discrepancy resulting in an addition by the ld. AO. The CIT(A) allowed relief based on new evidence of VAT payments, leading to the deletion of the addition. The revenue's grievance of lack of cross-verification under Rule 46A of the IT Rules was addressed. The CIT(A) justified the deletion by considering VAT audit reports and payment details, revealing that the assessee had paid VAT for purchases available for set-off. The matter was remanded for denovo adjudication, emphasizing procedural fairness and adherence to IT Rules. The appeal of the revenue was allowed. en-us Fri, 04 Dec 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 15 Jan 2021 12:09:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=402054 The appeal in ITA No. 4309/Mum/2017 for A.Y. 2009-10 involved a turnover discrepancy resulting in an addition by the ld. AO. The CIT(A) allowed relief based on new evidence of VAT payments, leading to the deletion of the addition. The revenue's grievance of lack of cross-verification under Rule 46A of the IT Rules was addressed. The CIT(A) justified the deletion by considering VAT audit reports and payment details, revealing that the assessee had paid VAT for purchases available for set-off. The matter was remanded for denovo adjudication, emphasizing procedural fairness and adherence to IT Rules. The appeal of the revenue was allowed. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 04 Dec 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=402054