https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=178612 Whether a difference between the assessee's declared cost of construction and the Departmental Valuation Officer's estimate justified an addition as unexplained investment was examined. The HC held that the Tribunal's consistent practice of ignoring such variation where the margin is below 10% has legal merit, and this binding administrative-judicial approach was overlooked by the appellate authority. The HC directed that, on remand, the authority must consider this established practice and the relevant HC precedent supporting tolerance for minor valuation differences, along with other pleas raised. The matter was remanded for fresh determination; the appeal was disposed of accordingly. en-us Thu, 29 Nov 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 22 May 2026 17:18:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=178612 Whether a difference between the assessee's declared cost of construction and the Departmental Valuation Officer's estimate justified an addition as unexplained investment was examined. The HC held that the Tribunal's consistent practice of ignoring such variation where the margin is below 10% has legal merit, and this binding administrative-judicial approach was overlooked by the appellate authority. The HC directed that, on remand, the authority must consider this established practice and the relevant HC precedent supporting tolerance for minor valuation differences, along with other pleas raised. The matter was remanded for fresh determination; the appeal was disposed of accordingly. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 29 Nov 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=178612