CIT v. K. Raja Gopala Rao

252 ITR 459High Court2001#7369 most cited
15

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 48Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 24(b)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 144B

Issues it is cited on

section 24(b)section 55section 48indexed cost of acquisitioncost of improvementsection 57section 50csection 50long term capital gainsection 143(2)transferperson

Judgments citing CIT v. K. Raja Gopala Rao

NARSHI GOPALJI MANGE,MUMBAI vs. ITO 27(2)(4), MUMBAI

In the result the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2064/MUM/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 69A

…hop has been upheld in the following decision of coordinate benches of this Tribunal and various high court in the case of ACIT V. Frontline Realty Pvt. Ltd. ITA Nos. 7472 & 7473/Mum/2018, ITO v. Ramabrahmam 57 SOT 130 (Chennai ITAT), CIT v. K. Raja Gopal Rao-252 ITR 459 (Madras HC),CIT v. Sri Hariram Hotels Pvt Ltd-229 CTR 455 (Karnataka НС),CIT v. Mithlesh Kumari - 92 ITR 9 (Delhi HC), Addl CIT v. K. S. Gupta - 119 ITR 372 (Andhra Pradesh HC), SAS Hotel Ltd v. ITO-4 ITD 297 (Madras ITAT), S. Balan alias Shanmugam Balkrishnan ChettiaF V. DCIT - 120 ITD 469 (Pune ITAT), Praveen Gupta v. ACIT - 137 TTJ 307 (Delhi…

INCLINE REALTY PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE -4(1), MUMBAI

ITA 112/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Ms. Vranda Matkari
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(iii)

…K. S. Gupta [119 ITR 372] - Decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Maithreyi Pai [152 ITR 247] - Decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. K. Raja Gopala Rao [252 ITR 459] - Decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Trishul Investments Ltd. [305 ITR 434] - Decision of the Tribunal in the case of Neera Jain Vs. ACIT in ITA No.1861/Mum/2009, dated 22/02/2010 - Decision of the Tribunal in the case of Dosch Pharmaceuticals (P.) Ltd. Vs. DCIT [(2023) 156 taxmann.com 728]…

FUSION LASTEK TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE 8(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 1094/HYD/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 May 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Us:

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234CSection 48

…fraid that as the same is not the issue which we are seized of in the present appeal, therefore, the said judicial pronouncement being distinguishable on facts would not carry the case of the assessee company any further. D. CIT vs. K. Raja Gopala Rao [2001] 252 ITR 459 (Madras): 22. The issue before the Hon'ble High Court was that as to whether or not the mortgage expenses incurred by the assessee in connection with the acquisition of the property and the interest payable on the mortgage amount which was utilized as a part of the purchase consideration would form part of the cost of acquisition of the propert…

DCIT 3(2)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. NEVILLE TULI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue Department stands dismissed

ITA 3203/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Porus Kaka, Ld. Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Preetam kumar Turerao, Ld. SR. AR
Section 24Section 250Section 55

…eduction of interest expenditure on housing loan u/s 48 as cost of acquisition. The following case laws have been referred to me by the appellant in support of his claim. The gist of the decision in each case is as under- "(1) CIT v. K. Raja Gopala Rao[2001] 252 ITR 459/ [2002] 125 Taxman 148 (Mad.): The case related to sale of a hotel property and the court decided that the interest on capital borrowed for the purpose of acquisition of the property shall be considered as cost of acquisition. The reason stated is payment of consideration for the acquisition of property indisputably having been made with the loan…

ASHUTOSH GUPTA,GHAZIABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, GHAIZABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 96/DEL/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Vice- & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadassessment Year: 2013-14

Section 57

…s to be treated as part of cost of acquisition and placed reliance on the decisions of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Mithlesh Kumari – (92 ITR 9) and the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Raja Gopala Rao – (252 ITR 459). Further, reliance was also 7 placed on the decision of Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Sh. Subhash Bana Vs. ACIT – ITA No.147/Del/2015 dated 19.02.2018. 10. On the other hand, learned Departmental Representative supported the orders of the authorities below. 11. Heard rival contentions. We observe that more or less an identical issue came u…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. GOLDEN FALCON PACIFIC LTD., NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue is dismissed and appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3895/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon'Bledcit –Circle – 10(1) V. M/S. Golden Falcon Pacific Ltd New Delhi Off. 101, Real Tech Park Sector-30, Vashi, Near Railway Station Navi Mumbai - 400705 Pan: Aadcg8569L (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S. Golden Falcon Pacific Ltd V. Dcit –Circle – 12(1) Now 10(1) C/O. M/S. Saraf & Chandra (C.A) Room No. 416-A Bharat Ins. Bldg, 3Rd Floor, 15-A Central Revenue Building Horniman Circle, Fort, Mumbai – 01 I.P. Estate, New Delhi - 110002 Pan: Aadcg8569L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(2)

…acquisition may increase in a subsequent year as a result of a liability or expenditure incurred after the date of acquisition eg. interest on money borrowed for payment of the purchase price." 16. In the case of C.I.T. v K. raja Gopala Rao reported in (2001) 252 ITR 459 (Mad) the Hon. Madras High Court held; "That the Cost of acquisition to assessee was not merely the amount that he had paid to the Vendor but also the cost of the borrowing made by him for the purpose of paying the Vendor and obtaining the sale deed. The fact that the mortgage was executed after the sale deed was obtained even though both the doc…

M/S. GOLDEN FALCON PACIFIC LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue is dismissed and appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3653/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon'Bledcit –Circle – 10(1) V. M/S. Golden Falcon Pacific Ltd New Delhi Off. 101, Real Tech Park Sector-30, Vashi, Near Railway Station Navi Mumbai - 400705 Pan: Aadcg8569L (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S. Golden Falcon Pacific Ltd V. Dcit –Circle – 12(1) Now 10(1) C/O. M/S. Saraf & Chandra (C.A) Room No. 416-A Bharat Ins. Bldg, 3Rd Floor, 15-A Central Revenue Building Horniman Circle, Fort, Mumbai – 01 I.P. Estate, New Delhi - 110002 Pan: Aadcg8569L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(2)

…acquisition may increase in a subsequent year as a result of a liability or expenditure incurred after the date of acquisition eg. interest on money borrowed for payment of the purchase price." 16. In the case of C.I.T. v K. raja Gopala Rao reported in (2001) 252 ITR 459 (Mad) the Hon. Madras High Court held; "That the Cost of acquisition to assessee was not merely the amount that he had paid to the Vendor but also the cost of the borrowing made by him for the purpose of paying the Vendor and obtaining the sale deed. The fact that the mortgage was executed after the sale deed was obtained even though both the doc…

DCIT, CIRCLE- 4(1), NEW DELHI vs. KANWAL MOHAN SINGH SEHGAL, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 500/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev Khurana, CAFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. DR
Section 131(1)(d)Section 24Section 43Section 48Section 54

…uisition. On query, the assessee submitted that interest incurred for acquisition of capital asset forms part of cost of asset and relied on the following decisions: 1. CIT vs. Sri Hari Ram Hotels Pvt. Ltd. 188 Taxman 178 (Kar) 2. CIT vs. Shri Raja Gopala Rao 252 ITR 459 (Mad) 3. CIT vs. Mithilesh Kumari (1973) 92 ITR 9 (Delhi) 4. The submission of the assessee was not acceptable to the Ld. AO who observed that the decisions (supra) are not applicable to the case of the assessee. These decisions (supra) say that actual cost would include all expenditure necessary to bring the assets into existence and put them i…

SMT. SAROJ BANSAL,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result, both these appeals of the assesses are allowed

ITA 1226/JPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Sept 2020AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma &For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal (Addl.CIT)
Section 139Section 143Section 143(3)

…ari (1973) 92 ITR 9 held that interest paid on amount borrowed for purchase of open plot of land forms part of cost of acquisition. The High Court of Madras in case of 5 ITA 1225 & 1226/JP/2018_ Chitra Bansal Vs ACIT & 1 Anr CIT Vs. K. Raja Gopala Rao (2001) 252 ITR 459 and High Court of Karnataka in case of CIT Vs. Maithreys Pal (1985) 152 ITR 247 also held in same view. In view of these judicial pronouncements the assessee has correctly claimed the interest paid on borrowings for purchase of plot as cost of improvements. The action of A.O. and Ld. CIT(A) is contrary to law and thus cannot be sustained. Thus, t…

SMT. CHITRA BANSAL ,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result, both these appeals of the assesses are allowed

ITA 1225/JPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Sept 2020AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma &For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal (Addl.CIT)
Section 139Section 143Section 143(3)

…ari (1973) 92 ITR 9 held that interest paid on amount borrowed for purchase of open plot of land forms part of cost of acquisition. The High Court of Madras in case of 5 ITA 1225 & 1226/JP/2018_ Chitra Bansal Vs ACIT & 1 Anr CIT Vs. K. Raja Gopala Rao (2001) 252 ITR 459 and High Court of Karnataka in case of CIT Vs. Maithreys Pal (1985) 152 ITR 247 also held in same view. In view of these judicial pronouncements the assessee has correctly claimed the interest paid on borrowings for purchase of plot as cost of improvements. The action of A.O. and Ld. CIT(A) is contrary to law and thus cannot be sustained. Thus, t…

TRIPLE ESS INFRASTRUCTURE P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL.CIT, RANGE-27, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2444/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 May 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuasstt. Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri F.R. Meena, Sr. DR and Shri S.S. Rana, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)

…he ratio will apply as binding precedence. Now there are other judgments of Hon’ble High Court, wherein similar proposition has been laid down for instance CIT vs. Sri Hariram Hotels (P.) Ltd. (2010) 325 ITR 136 Karnataka; and CIT vs. K. Raja Gopala Rao(2002) 252 ITR 459 (Madras). Thus, we direct the AO to allow the interest up to the date of sale. 14. Next issue challenged by the assessee is that, AO has not given credit of other expenses of Rs. 1,13,82,644/- incurred in relation to the property. Before us Ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted the details of expenses incurred by the assessee over the perio…

SUGANRAJ SUNIL KUMAR,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 12(4), CHENNAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes only

ITA 1502/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Dec 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri A.Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Mr.G.Baskar,AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr.B.Sagadevan,JCIT,D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 48

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ’डी’ SMC "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘ D’ SMC BENCH : CHENNAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, उपा"य" एवं ए. मोहन अलंकामणी, लेखा सद"य BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.1502/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment year : 2013-14 Shri Suganraj Sunil Kumar, Vs. The Income Tax officer, 136,Govindappa Street, Non-Corporate Ward-12(4), Chennai 600 001. Chennai 600 006. [PAN AJUPS 8173 R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant by : Mr.G.Baskar,Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent by : M…

ACIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 10(1), CHENNAI vs. KEWAL CHAND RATHORE, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for 6

ITA 2657/CHNY/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2657/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2009-2010. The Assistant Commissioner Vs. Shri. Kewal Chand Rathore, Of Income Tax, No.24, Bangaru Reddy Street, Non Corporate Circle 10(1) Ayanawaram, Chennai. Chennai 600 023. [Pan Aagpk 0164K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Respondent: None
Section 48Section 55(2)

…ing on a judgment of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. Hariram Hotels (P) Ltd 325 ITR 136 and CIT vs. Maithreyi Pai (2008- TMI-27586) and also a judgment of Hon’bel Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. K. Rajagopala Rao, (2001) 252 ITR 459 held the issue in favour of the assessee. Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) also quoted from a decision of the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of ACIT vs. Ramabrahman. In our opinion, how the facts relating to these case laws, compared with the facts in assessee’s case was not carefully verified by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appea…

DCIT CEN CIR 3, MUMBAI vs. SWAN ENERGY LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 6662/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Dec 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 6662 & 3870/Mum/2014 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12 & 2010-11) Dcit Cen Cir 3 M/S Swan Energy Ltd. Room No. 905, Pratistha Formerly Known As Swan Mills Ltd, 2Nd Bhavan, Marines Lines, बिधम/ Mumbai-400020. Floor, Feltham House, Vs. Ballard Estate, J.N. Herdia Marg, Mumbai- 400001. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No. Aabcs7890Q & आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 5778 & 2924/Mum/2014 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year:2011-12 & 2010-11) M/S Swan Energy Ltd. Acit Rg 7(2) Formerly Known As Swan Room No. 626, M. K. बिधम/ Mills Ltd, 2Nd Floor, Feltham Road, Churchgate, Vs. House, Ballard Estate, J.N. Mumbai-400020. Herdia Marg, Mumbai- 400001. अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. J. P. Bairagazd प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondentby : Ms. Abha Kala Chanda सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 27/09/2017 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 06/12/2017 Date Of Pronouncement M/S Swan Energy Ltd..

For Appellant: Sh. J. P. BairagazdFor Respondent: Ms. Abha Kala Chanda
Section 14Section 143(3)Section 14A

…cumstances, the interest component paid to M/s. Tropicana pertaining to this land was forming part of cost of improvement of the said land. On this issue the appellant has relied on the following decisions:- M/s Swan Energy Ltd.. i) CIT vs. K. Rajagopala Rao 252 ITR 459(Mad) ii) CIT vs. MithleshKumari, 921TR 9 (Del) iii) CiT vs. Sri. Hari Ram Hotels P. Ltd, 229 CTR 455 (Karnataka) iv) ACIT vs. C Rama Brahmam 27 Taxman.Com 104 (Chennai Trib) Besides above decisions, the issue of cost of improvement has been discussed in the following decisions. I) CIT vs. Eagle Theatres (2012) 205 Taxman 449, (Del) ii) Mrs. June…

ANALJIT SINGH,DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 16(2), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4737/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Dec 2017AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P.Kant

Section 143(3)Section 2Section 50D

…e case of CIT vs. Mithilesh Kumari (92 ITR 9) & catena of other decisions which are as under:- • Trishul Investments Ltd vs. CIT: 305 ITR 434 (Mad.) • ACIT v: K S Gupta: 119-ITR372 (Andh.) • CIT v, MaithreyiPai: 152 ITR 247 (Kar.) • CIT v. K. Raja Gopala Rao: 252 ITR 459 (Madras) • CIT v. Sri Hariram Hotels (P.) Ltd: 188 Taxman 170 (Kar.) 123 | P a g e I.T.A .No.-4737/Del/2017 • Praveen Gupta v. ACIT: 20 Taxmann.com 308 (Del.) • S. Balan alia Shanmugam v. DCIT: 120 ITD 469 (Pune) • Gayatri Maheshwari vs. ITO: 187 TTJ 33 (Jodhpur) 69. Regarding applicability of AS-13 & AS-16, he had submitted that, insofar as…

CIT v. K. Raja Gopala Rao (252 ITR 459) — Cited in 15 Judgments | BharatTax