https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=93017 The ITAT allowed the assessee's appeal and held the Revenue's rectification/miscellaneous application under section 254(2) to be not maintainable, directing deletion of the impugned addition of Rs. 21,73,975/-. The Tribunal found the order of the Ld. CIT(A) to be infirm and perverse, having relied on an invalid DVO report and having denied the assessee the benefit of the rate differential between CPWD and PWD rates when valuing the investment property. The Tribunal further applied the HC principle that the limitation period under s.254(2) runs from actual receipt of the ITAT order sought to be reviewed, and, on these grounds, dismissed the Revenue's application. en-us Fri, 03 Oct 2025 08:30:38 +0530 Fri, 03 Oct 2025 08:30:39 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=93017 The ITAT allowed the assessee's appeal and held the Revenue's rectification/miscellaneous application under section 254(2) to be not maintainable, directing deletion of the impugned addition of Rs. 21,73,975/-. The Tribunal found the order of the Ld. CIT(A) to be infirm and perverse, having relied on an invalid DVO report and having denied the assessee the benefit of the rate differential between CPWD and PWD rates when valuing the investment property. The Tribunal further applied the HC principle that the limitation period under s.254(2) runs from actual receipt of the ITAT order sought to be reviewed, and, on these grounds, dismissed the Revenue's application. Highlights Income Tax Fri, 03 Oct 2025 08:30:38 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=93017