ARAVAMUTHAN PARTHASARATHY,CHENNAI vs. ITO, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION WARD-1(10, CHENNAI

Since the issues raised in both these appeals are similar and based on the same identical facts, with the consent of both the parties, we proceed to hear both the appeals together and pass a consolidated order for the sake of convenience.

Ld. AR, Ms. G. Janane, Advocate, submits that IT(IT)A No. 4/Chny/2026 was filed in electronic mode and the assessee is not interested to pursue the same. She submits that the assessee filed an appeal in ITA No. 710/Chny/2026 manually for the same issues as stated in IT(IT)A No. 4/Chny/2026. She prayed to dismiss the same as a duplicate. Therefore, we dismiss the said appeal as a duplicate.

At the outset, Ld. AR placed on record the chart containing particulars of computation of capital gains for the year under consideration. On perusal of the same, the AO and the Ld. CIT(A) did not grant transfer expenses in the form of brokerage. The relevant evidence was placed by the assessee at page No. 28 of the paper book. On perusal of the same, we note that Mr. S. Kannan Srinivasan acknowledged the receipt of ₹60,000/- in relation to the sale of the residential house property at Plot No. 5, Maxworth Nagar Phase-I, Kolapakkam, Chennai. We note that in the commercial market, in reality, the expenditure in relation to the sale and purchase of real estate is therefore incurred. Considering the same and the evidence of confirmation of the acknowledgement of receipt of ₹60,000/- by the said person, we are of the considered opinion that it is an allowable expenditure, and the addition made thereon in respect of the same is deleted.

Further, the assessee claimed travel expenses as expenditure relating to the sale of his property. The relevant evidence is placed at page No. 29 of the paper book. On perusal of the same, we are of the considered opinion that travel expenditure incurred from the US to India is not an expenditure to be claimed in relation to the sale of immovable property. Since it consists of a personal expenditure, therefore, the claim of the assessee is rejected.

Further, the assessee claimed interest on housing loan, the evidence of which is placed at page No. 4 of the additional evidence petition. On perusal of the same, we note that the interest on housing loan is not an expenditure in relation to the sale of a property. Therefore, the arguments of the Ld. AR, since the assessee incurred the said expenditure for the same property and claiming the same as an expenditure in relation to the said property, is rejected. Further, loan processing charges, document charges and conveyance, power, etc., and other amenities to an extent of ₹46,000/-, ₹1,23,000/-, ₹92,000/- and ₹3,23,500/-, respectively, establish the expenditure incurred towards the sale of property. We find the AO and Ld. CIT(A) disallowed the same for non-submission of any evidence to that effect. We note that in a transaction of real estate, there is an expenditure in respect of loan processing charges, document charges and conveyance, power and water, etc., and other amenities, which are allowable expenditures. Therefore, considering the same, we are of the considered opinion that the assessee is entitled to claim the said expenditure as allowable. We, therefore, find that the addition made to that effect is deleted. Thus, the

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part.