https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468083 Addition based on a Departmental Valuation Officer's estimate of construction cost was deleted where the assessee's books capitalised the project cost and the valuation relied on CPWD plinth area rates instead of local rates. The Tribunal accepted that local rates were more appropriate and followed coordinate Bench views allowing a deduction for the gap between CPWD and local material rates, together with self-supervision charges. On the facts, the assessee's working was accepted, including 15% for material-rate difference and 10% for self-supervision, bringing the estimate broadly in line with the books. en-us Wed, 30 Oct 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 15 Apr 2026 20:22:30 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468083 Addition based on a Departmental Valuation Officer's estimate of construction cost was deleted where the assessee's books capitalised the project cost and the valuation relied on CPWD plinth area rates instead of local rates. The Tribunal accepted that local rates were more appropriate and followed coordinate Bench views allowing a deduction for the gap between CPWD and local material rates, together with self-supervision charges. On the facts, the assessee's working was accepted, including 15% for material-rate difference and 10% for self-supervision, bringing the estimate broadly in line with the books. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 30 Oct 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468083