https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=419614 The appeal in the first case was allowed as the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to determine gross profit at 10% on alleged hawala purchases, finding the addition without evidence of physical movement of goods to be incorrect. In the second case, the Tribunal remanded the issue for proper computation of disallowance related to investments yielding exempt income, as discrepancies were found in the Assessing Officer's calculation. The Tribunal allowed both appeals, with the first case being allowed for statistical purposes and the second case being allowed based on identical facts and issues. en-us Fri, 04 Mar 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 15 Mar 2022 09:20:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=419614 The appeal in the first case was allowed as the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to determine gross profit at 10% on alleged hawala purchases, finding the addition without evidence of physical movement of goods to be incorrect. In the second case, the Tribunal remanded the issue for proper computation of disallowance related to investments yielding exempt income, as discrepancies were found in the Assessing Officer's calculation. The Tribunal allowed both appeals, with the first case being allowed for statistical purposes and the second case being allowed based on identical facts and issues. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 04 Mar 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=419614