https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=306724 Declared jewellery that had earlier been accepted under the Voluntary Disclosure of Income Scheme, and was supported by evidence of devolution and vouchers, could not be treated as unexplained investment; the addition was deleted. Advances from customers received through banking channels, recorded in the books and supported by confirmations and ledger accounts, were treated as business advances and not unexplained receipts under section 68; that addition was also deleted. A consistently followed closing-stock valuation method, accepted in earlier years and not shown to be defective, could not be displaced by the Assessing Officer on a different basis; the deletion of the stock addition was upheld. en-us Fri, 10 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 22 Feb 2023 08:49:54 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=306724 Declared jewellery that had earlier been accepted under the Voluntary Disclosure of Income Scheme, and was supported by evidence of devolution and vouchers, could not be treated as unexplained investment; the addition was deleted. Advances from customers received through banking channels, recorded in the books and supported by confirmations and ledger accounts, were treated as business advances and not unexplained receipts under section 68; that addition was also deleted. A consistently followed closing-stock valuation method, accepted in earlier years and not shown to be defective, could not be displaced by the Assessing Officer on a different basis; the deletion of the stock addition was upheld. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 10 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=306724