https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=16626 The court ruled in favor of the Revenue, upholding the deletion of the amount allowed by the Assessing Officer for property improvement. It emphasized the discretion of counsel in choosing arguments and cautioned against attributing mistakes to them. The court answered affirmatively to the first question, supporting the Revenue, and negatively to the second question, again favoring the Revenue. The dismissal of the miscellaneous petition was deemed appropriate, considering the counsel's discretion and the issue's prior consideration. The judgment directed the forwarding of the decision to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench. en-us Thu, 24 Oct 1996 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 09 Sep 2009 10:42:34 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=16626 The court ruled in favor of the Revenue, upholding the deletion of the amount allowed by the Assessing Officer for property improvement. It emphasized the discretion of counsel in choosing arguments and cautioned against attributing mistakes to them. The court answered affirmatively to the first question, supporting the Revenue, and negatively to the second question, again favoring the Revenue. The dismissal of the miscellaneous petition was deemed appropriate, considering the counsel's discretion and the issue's prior consideration. The judgment directed the forwarding of the decision to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 24 Oct 1996 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=16626