ZOYA ZAKI,NOIDA vs. DDIT/ADIT (INT. TAX) RANGE 560, NOIDA, NOIDA

PDF · subscribers
ITITA 57/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 March 2026AY 2022-237 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the property was acquired in FY 2009-10, as payments were made during that financial year, and the allotment letter was issued by DLF on 09.12.2009 after all payments were accounted for. Therefore, indexation on the cost of acquisition, including brokerage, must be allowed from FY 2009-10, irrespective of the sale deed registration date in the subsequent financial year. The Tribunal directed the AO to allow indexation on the entire cost of acquisition from FY 2009-10. Regarding brokerage, the Tribunal directed its allowance as deduction, citing evidence of payment to the broker through banking channels. The Tribunal did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Zoya Zaki, filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) dated 30.09.2025 for Assessment Year 2022-23. The assessment was framed under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee, an NRI, sold a property in FY 2021-22, her share being Rs. 1.71 crore. The property was purchased in FY 2009-10 for Rs. 1,44,27,063/-. The DLF Ltd. registered the property in the assessee's name in FY 2010-11. The Assessing Officer (AO) allowed indexation on Rs. 28,00,003/- from FY 2010-11 instead of FY 2009-10 and disallowed brokerage of Rs. 92,776/- due to lack of documentary evidence. This resulted in an increase in Long Term Capital Gains (LTCG) to Rs. 10,55,688/- from Rs. 6,37,812/-.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the CIT(A) erred in confirming the AO's order which disallowed the indexation of the cost of acquisition from FY 2009-10, as claimed by the assessee, and instead allowed it from FY 2010-11, concerning the amount of Rs. 28,00,003/- (Rs. 19,27,063/- + Rs. 8,57,940/-)? This issue turns on the interpretation of Section 48 of the Income Tax Act concerning the computation of capital gains. The assessee argued that the payment was made in FY 2009-10 and the possession letter was issued in December 2009, making it the acquisition year, relying on judgments like PCIT-3 Mumbai vs. Vembu Vaidyanathan (SC) and Mrs. Neena Singh vs. ITO. The revenue relied on the orders of the lower authorities. 2. Whether the CIT(A) erred in confirming the AO's disallowance of brokerage expenses of Rs. 92,776/- for want of requisite documentary evidence? This issue also relates to Section 48 of the Act. The assessee contended that proof of payment was provided, including a screenshot of a bank statement showing the transaction. The revenue relied on the lower authorities' findings.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 48,Section 143(3),Section 144C(3),Section 270A,Section 234A,Section 234B,Section 234C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH, D: NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, HON’BLE & SMT. RENU JAUHRI, HON’BLE

Hearing: 10.03.2026

IT ITA 57_DEL_2025_ZOYA ZAKI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, D: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SMT. RENU JAUHRI, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

ITA (IT) A. No. 57/Del/2025 [Assessment Year: 2022-23] Zoya Zaki DDIT/ADIT (Int. Taxation) Flat No. 6, Sector 28, Yamuna Range-560 Enclave, Gautam Buddha Nagar Vs Noida Noida- 201301 Uttar Pradesh PAN- AABPZ9447P Assessee Revenue Assessee by Sh. Amit Kaushik, Advocate Sh. Himanshu Sharma, Advocate Revenue by Sh. Vikram Singh Sharma, Sr. DR

Date of Hearing 10.03.2026 Date of Pronouncement 18 .03.2026 ORDER PER RENU JAUHRI:

This appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner Income Tax (Appeal) [for short, Ld. CIT(A)] dated 30.09.2025 for A.Y. 2022-23 in Appeal No. CIT(A) Noida- 2/10008/2021-22. The assessment was framed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C (3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) vide order dated 29.04.2024.

IT ITA 57_DEL_2025_ZOYA ZAKI

2.

The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: “1. That the CIT(A) grossly erred in law and on the facts and circumstances of the case in dismissing the appeal of the Appellant by confirming the order dated 29.04.2024 passed by the respondent without considering that the same was erroneous and bad in law. 2. That the CIT(A) grossly erred in law and on the facts and circumstances of the case in dismissing the appeal of the Appellant by confirming the order dated 29.04.2024 passed by the respondent without considering that the additions to the income of the Appellant was made without considering the material on record and in denial of the principles of natural justice. 3. That the CIT(A) grossly erred in law and on the facts and circumstances of the case in dismissing the appeal of the Appellant by confirming the order dated 29.04.2024 passed by the respondent without considering that the indexation of cost of acquisition of Rs. 27,85,003/- was to be indexed from the financial year 2009-10 i.e. first year in which the asset was held by the assessee. 4. That the CIT(A) grossly erred in law and on the facts and circumstances of the case in dismissing the appeal of the Appellant by confirming the order dated 29.04.2024 passed by the respondent without considering that the appellant had duly given the proof of the payment of brokerage of Rs. 92,776/- (50 percent of Rs. 1,85,552/-) at the time of transfer.

5.

That the CIT(A) on facts and in law erred in not deleting the interest levied by the respondent under section 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act and in not deleting the penalty imposed under section 270A of the Act. 6. The Appellant craves for leave to add, amend, vary, omit 0R substitute any of the aforesaid grounds of appeal at any time before 0R at the time of hearing of the appeal. 7. That all the grounds are without prejudice to each other.

IT ITA 57_DEL_2025_ZOYA ZAKI

8.

That the CIT(A) grossly erred in law and on the facts and circumstances of the case in dismissing the appeal of the Appellant by confirming the order dated 29.04.2024 passed by the respondent without considering that the same was without jurisdiction and thus void ab initio.”

3.

Although the assessee has raised multiple grounds in her appeal, the sole substantive issue relates to the computation of Capital Gains. The assessee is aggrieved by the denial of deduction on account of brokerage as also on adoption of the relevant year for computing indexed cost of acquisition.

3.1 Brief facts are that the assessee, an NRI sold a property in F.Y. 2021-22 owned jointly with her husband for Rs. 3.42 cr. wherein her share @ 50% was Rs. 1.71cr. The said property was purchased in the F.Y. 2009-10 from the original allottee of DLF Ltd and the cost of flat was stated to be Rs. 1,44,27,063/-.

3.2 The DLF Ltd. made the registry in F.Y. 2010-11 directly in the name of assessee and her husband. It was submitted by the assessee that the property was acquired by taking loan of Rs. 90,00,000/- and another Rs. 35 lakhs was paid to the seller from own sources. Balance of Rs. 19,27,063/- was also paid from own sources. In the computation of capital gains, 50% of the stamp duty i.e., Rs. 8,57,940/- was also added to the cost of acquisition which therefore worked out to

IT ITA 57_DEL_2025_ZOYA ZAKI

Rs. 1,52,85,003/. The Ld. Jurisdictional Assessing Officer [for short, JAO] held that out of the above amount, in respect of Rs. 28,00,003/- [Rs. 19,27,063/- + Rs. 8,57,940/-] benefit of indexation should be allowed from F.Y. 2010-11 and not F.Y. 2009-10 as claimed by the assessee. Further, 50% of brokerage paid i.e., Rs. 92,776/- was also not allowed as deduction in the absence of requisite documentary evidence while recomputing the Capital Gains. Accordingly, an order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(3) of the Act was passed on 29.04.2024 whereby Long Term Capital Gains [for short, LTCG] was complied at Rs. 10,55,688/- as against declared LTCG of Rs. 6,37,812/-.

3.3 Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). However, Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee observing that since payment of Rs. 19,27,063/- plus Rs. 8,57,940/- was made at the time of registration in F.Y. 2010-11, Ld. AO had rightly allowed indexation in respect of this amount from F.Y. 2010-11 only. As regards brokerage, Ld. CIT(A) held that there is a screenshot of bank statement showing the transaction but in the absence of any receipt from the broker, deduction has rightly been disallowed. Further aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.

IT ITA 57_DEL_2025_ZOYA ZAKI

4.

Before us, Ld. AR has submitted that the payment of Rs. 19,27,063/- was actually made in F.Y. 2009-10 but, due to lapse of time, the assessee is not able to retrieve the bank details. Further, the possession letter was issued to the appellant on 09.12.2009 by the DLF Ltd. only after all the payments had been made and accounted for. However, the registration of the sale deed took place in June, 2010. Copies of agreement to sell dated 02.12.2009, loan documents in respect of Rs. 90,00,000/- sanctioned on 07.12.2009 as well as the registered sale deed dated 29.06.2010 have also been placed on record.

4.1 Ld. AR has further placed reliance on a plethora of judgements in support of his arguments that the date of allotment in such cases would be the date of acquisition of property for computing the LTCG. Some of the decisions relied upon by him are as under: i. PCIT-3 Mumbai vs. Vembu Vaidyanathan [2019] 108 taxmann.com 339 (SC) wherein it was held that the date of allotment would be the date of acquisition when an assessee purchases a flat being constructed by DDA.

ii. PCIT vs. Vembu Vaidyanathan [2019] 108 taxmann.com 339 (SC) whereby the SLP filed by Revenue against the above decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court was dismissed.

iii. Mrs. Neena Singh vs. ITO, ITA No. 1074/Del/2018 wherein Hon’ble Co-ordinate Bench at Delhi had held that the date of agreement of an identifiable unit or property is the date of its acquisition. 5

IT ITA 57_DEL_2025_ZOYA ZAKI

4.3 On the other hand, Ld. DR has strongly relied on the orders of the lower authorities. 5. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. Relevant judicial pronouncements have been considered with reference to the facts at hand.

5.1 Admittedly, the assessee acquired the impugned property in 2009 for which the payment was made during F.Y. 2009-10 by taking bank loan of Rs. 90,00,000/- and balance amount from own sources. It is only after the total payment was made that the allotment letter was issued by the DLF in the name of the assessee on 09.12.2009 as is evident from the allotment letter and sale deed. We, therefore, hold that the property has been acquired in F.Y. 2009-10 and, therefore, indexation on the cost of acquisition, including brokerage has to be allowed w.e.f F.Y. 2009-10 irrespective of the fact that the sale deed was registered in the next financial year. We, therefore, direct the Ld. AO to allow the computation of cost of acquisition by giving benefit of indexation in respect of the entire amount w.e.f. F.Y. 2009-10. Further deduction on account of brokerage of Rs. 92,776/- is also directed to be allowed in view of evidence placed on record showing payment made to the broker Mr. Harsh Gupta through the banking channels.

IT ITA 57_DEL_2025_ZOYA ZAKI

6.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 18th March, 2026.

Sd/- Sd/- [ANUBHAV SHARMA] [RENU JAUHRI] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated-18.03.2026. Pooja Mittal, Sr. PS. Copy forwarded to: 1. Assessee 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi

More judgments on Section 48

All 1,457 judgments and leading authorities on Section 48 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →