https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=779786 ITAT held the appeals in favor of the appellant and deleted additions made by the AO and upheld by the CIT(A). The tribunal found the property was jointly owned by four brothers, so any renovation investment should be apportioned among all co-owners and not charged solely to the appellant. Further, the AO lacked competence to value the property and failed to refer valuation to the DVO; the valuation was therefore unsubstantiated and erroneous. On both grounds the additions for the assessment years were deleted and the appeals allowed. en-us Fri, 10 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 13 Oct 2025 08:54:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=779786 ITAT held the appeals in favor of the appellant and deleted additions made by the AO and upheld by the CIT(A). The tribunal found the property was jointly owned by four brothers, so any renovation investment should be apportioned among all co-owners and not charged solely to the appellant. Further, the AO lacked competence to value the property and failed to refer valuation to the DVO; the valuation was therefore unsubstantiated and erroneous. On both grounds the additions for the assessment years were deleted and the appeals allowed. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 10 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=779786