https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117275 The Department's appeal against the CIT(A)'s order, which deleted an addition of Rs. 82,210 due to a difference in the cost of construction, was dismissed by the ITAT. The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the assessee used different classes of bricks, the AO's labor charges were excessive, and the valuation was reasonable. The ITAT also noted the standard practice of allowing a 10% rebate for self-supervision. Consequently, the addition of Rs. 82,210 was deleted, affirming the CIT(A)'s order. en-us Fri, 19 Jul 2002 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 21 Jun 2012 15:06:12 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117275 The Department's appeal against the CIT(A)'s order, which deleted an addition of Rs. 82,210 due to a difference in the cost of construction, was dismissed by the ITAT. The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the assessee used different classes of bricks, the AO's labor charges were excessive, and the valuation was reasonable. The ITAT also noted the standard practice of allowing a 10% rebate for self-supervision. Consequently, the addition of Rs. 82,210 was deleted, affirming the CIT(A)'s order. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 19 Jul 2002 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117275