https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458264 ITAT Ahmedabad ruled on multiple additions and penalties. The tribunal held that difference in closing balance cannot be added under section 68 as credit arose from undisputed purchases, not loans. Addition for unaccounted sales at 6.6% profit was confirmed as assessee admitted the same. However, CIT-A exceeded jurisdiction by adding unaccounted purchases not disputed at assessment stage - this addition was deleted. Opening stock disallowance was set aside to avoid double taxation as closing stock was already taxed in previous year. All penalties under section 271(1)(c) were deleted as quantum additions were removed and no penalty can be levied on estimated additions. en-us Wed, 31 Aug 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 17 Oct 2024 20:13:53 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458264 ITAT Ahmedabad ruled on multiple additions and penalties. The tribunal held that difference in closing balance cannot be added under section 68 as credit arose from undisputed purchases, not loans. Addition for unaccounted sales at 6.6% profit was confirmed as assessee admitted the same. However, CIT-A exceeded jurisdiction by adding unaccounted purchases not disputed at assessment stage - this addition was deleted. Opening stock disallowance was set aside to avoid double taxation as closing stock was already taxed in previous year. All penalties under section 271(1)(c) were deleted as quantum additions were removed and no penalty can be levied on estimated additions. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 31 Aug 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458264