https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=429291 The tribunal allowed grounds 2.1 and 2.2, directing the Assessing Officer to verify if the discrepancy in property valuation was within 15% and accept the declared value if so. Ground 2.3 was dismissed as the cost of improvements issue was not raised before the CIT(A). Ground 3.1 was also dismissed due to lack of evidence supporting the disallowed interest expenses. The appeal was partly allowed, with directions to accept the declared property value if within the 15% tolerance limit and dismiss the claims on cost of improvements and interest expenses. en-us Wed, 19 Oct 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 21 Oct 2022 09:46:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=429291 The tribunal allowed grounds 2.1 and 2.2, directing the Assessing Officer to verify if the discrepancy in property valuation was within 15% and accept the declared value if so. Ground 2.3 was dismissed as the cost of improvements issue was not raised before the CIT(A). Ground 3.1 was also dismissed due to lack of evidence supporting the disallowed interest expenses. The appeal was partly allowed, with directions to accept the declared property value if within the 15% tolerance limit and dismiss the claims on cost of improvements and interest expenses. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 19 Oct 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=429291