SATISH NARASIMHAIAH KUMAR,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1)(1) - BANGALORE, BANGALORE

ITA 2341/BANG/2026Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 September 2026AY 2022-233 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the claim for cost of improvement required proper verification and determination. It directed the Assessing Officer to refer the matter to the District Valuation Officer (DVO) for determining the cost of improvement/construction.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed cost of improvement for a property sold, but the Assessing Officer treated it as Nil due to lack of supporting documents. The assessee argued that the property was constructed on land they purchased and the cost of improvement should not be summarily rejected.

What were the issues?

Whether the cost of improvement for a constructed property can be rejected solely due to the absence of supporting documents, and if so, what is the proper procedure for its determination.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, BANGALORE BENCHES, BANGALORE

Before: SHRI WASEEM AHMED & SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL

For Respondent: Shri Keshav Choudhary, Addl. CIT

PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of Ld. NFAC, Delhi vide DIN: ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1087837643(1) dated 24-Mar-2026 for the Assessment Year 2022-23. 2. The learned AR submitted that the Assessing Officer erred in computing the capital gain by adopting the cost of improvement at ₹ Nil. It was submitted

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →