https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=34377 The Tribunal's deletion of the addition made after rejection of the books of account was upheld because the Assessing Officer pointed out no specific defect in the books, the closing stock valuation was not shown to be infirm, and the assessee had followed a consistent method of accounting and stock valuation. The High Court treated the Tribunal's conclusion as a factual determination based on the record and found no perversity. As the dispute did not give rise to any substantial question of law under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Revenue's challenge failed and the addition was not revived. en-us Wed, 19 Aug 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 06 Jul 2013 16:31:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=34377 The Tribunal's deletion of the addition made after rejection of the books of account was upheld because the Assessing Officer pointed out no specific defect in the books, the closing stock valuation was not shown to be infirm, and the assessee had followed a consistent method of accounting and stock valuation. The High Court treated the Tribunal's conclusion as a factual determination based on the record and found no perversity. As the dispute did not give rise to any substantial question of law under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Revenue's challenge failed and the addition was not revived. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 19 Aug 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=34377