https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=68760 The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, ruling that the AO lacked jurisdiction to request the DVO's report under section 131(1)(d) of the IT Act, rendering the DVO's report inadmissible. It was found that the AO's additions were unjustified as they solely relied on the DVO's report without independent verification. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that discrepancies in the AO's approach and the minor difference between the DVO's valuation and the assessee's disclosed investment warranted ignoring the additions. As a result, all Department appeals were dismissed. en-us Wed, 08 Oct 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 01 Apr 2011 13:09:06 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=68760 The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, ruling that the AO lacked jurisdiction to request the DVO's report under section 131(1)(d) of the IT Act, rendering the DVO's report inadmissible. It was found that the AO's additions were unjustified as they solely relied on the DVO's report without independent verification. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that discrepancies in the AO's approach and the minor difference between the DVO's valuation and the assessee's disclosed investment warranted ignoring the additions. As a result, all Department appeals were dismissed. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 08 Oct 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=68760