AO made addition on account of alleged excess stock and also levied the penalty. Tribunal held that excess stock existed only on account of wrong entries in books of account and in any case higher stock declared as closing stock in a particular year would be taken as opening stock at beginning of next year and, therefore, tax effect of such alleged excess stock was ‘NIL’. Accordingly set aside addition made by AO and also deleted the penalty. High Court affirmed the order of the Tribunal. (ITA No. 501/502 of 2017 dt. 21-06 -2018 (AY. 2008-09, 2009-10
PCIT v. Deccan Mining Syndicate (P.) Ltd. (2019) 105 taxmann.com 277/ 263 Taxman 449 (Karn.)(HC) PCIT v. Deccan Mining Syndicate (P.) Ltd. (2019) 105 taxmann.com 137 / 263 Taxman 342 (Karn.)(HC) Editorial: SLP of revenue is dismissed , PCIT v. Deccan Mining Syndicate (P.) Ltd. (2019) 263 Taxman 448 (SC)/ PCIT v. Deccan Mining Syndicate (P.) Ltd. (2019) 263 Taxman 341 (SC)
S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Excess stock–Deletion of penalty and also quantum of addition is held to be valid. [S. 145]