https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=215472 The court held that the Assessing Officer's reference to the Valuation Officer was invalid as the books of accounts were not rejected. The minor 3.86% difference in construction costs did not justify the additions made by the Assessing Officer. Relying solely on the Valuation Officer's report without identifying defects in the books of accounts was deemed inappropriate. The court dismissed the appeals, finding no substantial legal question and upholding the decisions of the lower authorities. en-us Fri, 27 Jul 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 02 Mar 2026 15:49:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=215472 The court held that the Assessing Officer's reference to the Valuation Officer was invalid as the books of accounts were not rejected. The minor 3.86% difference in construction costs did not justify the additions made by the Assessing Officer. Relying solely on the Valuation Officer's report without identifying defects in the books of accounts was deemed inappropriate. The court dismissed the appeals, finding no substantial legal question and upholding the decisions of the lower authorities. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 27 Jul 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=215472