cost of improvement — 749 judgments | BharatTax

KAILAS KALYAN CREATORS PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO WARD 2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

ITA 2342/AHD/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Apr 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.2342/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2023-24 Kailas Kalyan Creators The Ito बनाम/ Private Limited Ward-2(1)(1) V/S. 5, Prerna Kutir Bungalows Ahmedabad – 380 051 Nr. Sarthi Hotel Vastrapur, Bodakdev Ahmedabad – 380 054 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaack 9110 C (अपीलाथ(/ Appellant) ()* यथ(/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Chetan Agarwal, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Alpesh Parmar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/04/2026 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg:

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR

Section 250Section 48

Asst. Year : 2023-24 “1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on fact by upholding disallowance of cost of improvement amounting to Rs. 7,65,95,000/- made by Ld. AC along with indexation thereon claimed while computing long term capital gain u/s 48 r.w.s ... year 2016 and the remaining amount of Rs.4,00,00,000/- was paid in the year 2023. The said expenditure was claimed as cost of improvement in the return of income. The assessee also requested the Ld. CIT(A) to get the aforesaid facts verified by calling remand report from

SRI GURU RAMALINGESHWARA SOUHARDA PATTINA SAHAKARI NIYAMITHA ,MASKI vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , HUBLI

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

ITA 1174/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Muthu Shankar, JCIT (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

Paville Projects Pvt. Ltd., the assessee had claimed a substantial amount paid to shareholders pursuant to a family settlement as “cost of improvement” while computing capital gains on sale of property. The learned CIT(A) found that such payments were not related to the capital asset and did not result

SUDHIR AWANA,GAUTAM BUDDHA NAGAR vs. ACIT,CIRCLE-3, NOIDA

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3090/DEL/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M. Balaganeshsudhir Awana, Vs. Acit, F-15, Sector 20, Gautam Circle-3, Bnuddha Nagar, Noida Noida (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Abmpa0354N Assessee By : Shri Pancham Sethi, Ca Revenue By: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 13/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 11/03/2026

For Appellant: Shri Pancham Sethi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

learned CITA was justified in confirming the action of the learned AO in disallowing the sum of Rs. 8,02,255 being the cost of improvement of property and the commission expenses of Rs. 98,000 as expenses incurred on transfer while computing the capital gains along with disallowing ... reopened under section 148 of the Act on 29-3-2017. In the reassessment, the learned AO made the following disallowances:- a) cost of improvement of the property – Rs 8,02,255 b) Commission expenses incurred in cash in connection with the property – Rs 98,000 c) Cost of acquisition

RANVIRSINH AMARSINH DODIYA,AHMEDABAD vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 307/AHD/2026[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Mar 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms Suchitra Kmble

For Appellant: Shri Nimesh R Hariya, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250

computation, wherein long-term capital gain arising from sale of immovable property was shown after claiming indexed cost of acquisition, indexed cost of improvement over several financial years, and transfer expenses. The case was selected for scrutiny through CASS on the issue of capital gains/income on sale of immovable property ... sale deed, computation of income, Form 26AS, bank statements and the evidences furnished by the appellant in support of the claim of cost of improvement and other deductions. On such examination, it was noticed that while the appellant had claimed substantial amounts towards cost of improvement for different years, authenticated

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2)(3), BENGALURU vs. UMA RUGMINI, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2100/BANG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Sathvik, CAFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian .S, JCIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 271FSection 54

also submitted the copy of the purchase deed of the said property. The assessee also filed the documentary evidence in support of the cost of improvement and finally the assessee arrived the long term capital gains at Rs. 1,74,52,662/- as against

SACHINKUMAR SUBRAI KANSE,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 42(3)(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

ITA 8140/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev Bhagat, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148Section 149(1)(b)Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)

treating the full value of consideration as Long-term capital gains ignoring the indexed cost of acquisition and indexed cost of improvement 6. Without Prejudice to Ground No 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld CIT(A) failed to consider that

SACHINKUMAR SUBRAI KANSE,THANE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 42(3)(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

ITA 8139/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev Bhagat, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148Section 149(1)(b)Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)

treating the full value of consideration as Long-term capital gains ignoring the indexed cost of acquisition and indexed cost of improvement 6. Without Prejudice to Ground No 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld CIT(A) failed to consider that

SIVASUNDAR SELVAKUMARI,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-1(6), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3154/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. N. Balakrishnan, CIT

Section 139(4)Section 144BSection 147Section 194ISection 45

before us, the amount paid by the Assessee to clear that encumbrance has to be treated as part of cost of acquisition or cost of improvement under section 48/49 of the Act.” The finding of the Hon’ble SC in V.S.M.R. Jagadishchandran Vs.CIT(1997) 227 ITR 240 (SC) (Annexure

MENAKURU SUKUMAR REDDY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT(A), CHENNAI

ITA 993/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 251(2)Section 69A

erred in enhancing the addition towards sale of Agricultural land amounting to Rs.7,40,00,000/- (which includes cost of improvement amounting to Rs.50,79,685/-). d) The Id.CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition made as unexplained credit u/s.69A of the Act amounting to Rs.19 ... same. c) The Id.CIT(A) erred in enhancing the addition towards sale of Agricultural land amounting to Rs.7,40,00,000/- (which includes cost of improvement amounting to Rs.50,79,685/-): The Id.AR submitted that during the year the assessee has sold agricultural land for a consideration of amounting

MENAKURU SUKUMAR REDDY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT(A), CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 992/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. P. Murali Mohana Rao, CAFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 251(2)Section 69A

erred in enhancing the addition towards sale of Agricultural land amounting to Rs.7,40,00,000/- (which includes cost of improvement amounting to Rs.50,79,685/-). d) The ld.CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition made as unexplained credit u/s.69A of the Act amounting to Rs.19 ... same. c) The ld.CIT(A) erred in enhancing the addition towards sale of Agricultural land amounting to Rs.7,40,00,000/- (which includes cost of improvement amounting to Rs.50,79,685/-): The ld.AR submitted that during the year the assessee has sold agricultural land for a consideration of amounting

MENAKURU SUKUMAR REDDY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT(A), CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 991/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. P. Murali Mohana Rao, CAFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 251(2)Section 69A

erred in enhancing the addition towards sale of Agricultural land amounting to Rs.7,40,00,000/- (which includes cost of improvement amounting to Rs.50,79,685/-). d) The ld.CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition made as unexplained credit u/s.69A of the Act amounting to Rs.19 ... same. c) The ld.CIT(A) erred in enhancing the addition towards sale of Agricultural land amounting to Rs.7,40,00,000/- (which includes cost of improvement amounting to Rs.50,79,685/-): The ld.AR submitted that during the year the assessee has sold agricultural land for a consideration of amounting

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. MENAKURU SUKUMAR REDDY , CHENNAI

ITA 1644/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 991, 992 & 993/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 Menakuru Sukumar Reddy, 8-2-696-697, Road No.2, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad - 500 034. [Pan: Aabhm-8414-M] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Dcit, Vs. Central Circle -3(4), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1639 & 1644/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2017-18 Acit, Central Circle -3(4), Chennai. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Menakuru Sukumar Reddy, Vs. 8-2-696-697, Road No.2, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad - 500 034. [Pan: Aabhm-8414-M] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. P. Murali Mohana Rao, Ca Department By : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04.12.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 02.03.2026 आदेश /Order Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am : :-2-:

For Appellant: Shri. P. Murali Mohana Rao, CAFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 251(2)Section 69A

erred in enhancing the addition towards sale of Agricultural land amounting to Rs.7,40,00,000/- (which includes cost of improvement amounting to Rs.50,79,685/-). d) The Id.CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition made as unexplained credit u/s.69A of the Act amounting to Rs.19 ... same. c) The Id.CIT(A) erred in enhancing the addition towards sale of Agricultural land amounting to Rs.7,40,00,000/- (which includes cost of improvement amounting to Rs.50,79,685/-): The Id.AR submitted that during the year the assessee has sold agricultural land for a consideration of amounting

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. MENAKURU SUKUMAR REDDY, CHENNAI

ITA 1639/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 991, 992 & 993/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 Menakuru Sukumar Reddy, 8-2-696-697, Road No.2, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad - 500 034. [Pan: Aabhm-8414-M] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Dcit, Vs. Central Circle -3(4), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1639 & 1644/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2017-18 Acit, Central Circle -3(4), Chennai. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Menakuru Sukumar Reddy, Vs. 8-2-696-697, Road No.2, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad - 500 034. [Pan: Aabhm-8414-M] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. P. Murali Mohana Rao, Ca Department By : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04.12.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 02.03.2026 आदेश /Order Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am : :-2-:

For Appellant: Shri. P. Murali Mohana Rao, CAFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 251(2)Section 69A

erred in enhancing the addition towards sale of Agricultural land amounting to Rs.7,40,00,000/- (which includes cost of improvement amounting to Rs.50,79,685/-). d) The Id.CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition made as unexplained credit u/s.69A of the Act amounting to Rs.19 ... same. c) The Id.CIT(A) erred in enhancing the addition towards sale of Agricultural land amounting to Rs.7,40,00,000/- (which includes cost of improvement amounting to Rs.50,79,685/-): The Id.AR submitted that during the year the assessee has sold agricultural land for a consideration of amounting

SUPREME TRACTORS PRIVATE LIMITED,HARYANA BHAWAN vs. DCIT, KATNI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 51/JAB/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur27 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri, Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2016-17 Supreme Tractors Pvt Ltd V. Dcit Katni, Madhya Pradesh 483501. Katni, Madhya Pradesh- 483501. Pan:Aajcs4013M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Sahil Gupta, Advocate Respondent By: Shri N. M. Prasad, Sr. Dr-1 Date Of Hearing: 12 02 2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 27 02 2026 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Sahil Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N. M. Prasad, Sr. DR-1

Section 115JSection 234C

said property: Sales Consideration: ₹80,45,000 Less: Page 3 of 7 Indexed Cost of Acquisition in 2006-07 ₹15,85,952 Indexed Cost of Improvement in 2010-11 ₹1,43,958 Indexed Cost of Improvement in 2011-12 23,53,899 Indexed Cost of Improvement

SITARAM MUCHHALA,MARDANA vs. ITO KHARGONE, KHARGONE

ITA 661/IND/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 246ASection 250Section 253Section 45Section 56Section 57

order ignoring submissions (supra). The Ld AR also submitted that the assessee is an agriculturist & village. Cost of acquisition benefit has not given. Cost of improvement has been taken as NIL. 50% of the amount has been allowed u/s 57(iv) as compensation is taxable u/s 53(2)(viii

BASETTI SADGUNA,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-1, SANGAREDDY

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1546/HYD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Raoआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1546/Hyd./2025 Assessment Year 2012-2013 Basetti Sadguna The Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad – 500 050. Ward-1, Vs. Telangana. Sanga Reddy–502001. Telangana. Pan Ajipb5254C (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Sri C Maheshwar Reddy, Ca राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Sri Suresh Babu Kn, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 25.02.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 27.02.2026 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Sri C Maheshwar Reddy, CAFor Respondent: Sri Suresh Babu KN, Sr. AR

Section 148Section 50C

specified in the agreement as reduced by the liability. For respondent no.1 to say that from the sale consideration only cost of acquisition, cost of improvement and cost of transfer can be reduced and the subsequent contingent liability does not come within any of the items of the reduction

MANJUNATHA NARAYANASWAMY MANCHANAYAKANAHALLI,BIDADI vs. DC/ACIT, CIRCLE-5(1)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1391/BANG/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Feb 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Akshay .K, CAFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian, JCIT-DR

Section 143(2)

sources for the cash deposits. Page 3 of 6 Insofar as the capital gain computation, the assessee submitted some documents and claimed the cost of improvement but the assessee had not furnished any documentary evidences in support of the said claim and cost of improvement. Therefore, the AO had confirmed ... said application, the assessee also furnished a valuation report given by the registered valuer in support of his claim that there was a cost of improvement. The Ld.CIT(A) forwarded the said additional documents to the AO and sought for the remand report from him since the said additional evidences

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH vs. RAJBIR SINGH WALIA, CHANDIGARH

The appeal stand dismissed

ITA 1338/CHANDI/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1338/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Dcit Circle-1(1) Shri Rajbir Singh Walia Room No. 214, Second Floor, House No. 345, Sector – 9D बनाम/ Vs. Aaykar Bhawan, Sector -17 E, Chandigarh - 160017 Chandigarh - 160017 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaapw-8792-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : None ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. Meenakshi Vohra (Cit) – Ld. Dr (Virtual) सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 23-02-2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23-02-2026 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Revenue For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Addl. / Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Vadodara [Cit(A)] Dated 25-08-2025 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S 143 (3) Of The Act On 27-11-2019. In The Assessment Order, Ld. Ao Re-Computed Long Term Capital Gains As Earned By The Assessee By Denying Cost Of Improvement. The Ld. Cit(A), After Due Consideration Of Assessee’S

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Meenakshi Vohra (CIT) – Ld. DR (Virtual)

Section 143

assessment order, Ld. AO re-computed Long Term Capital Gains as earned by the assessee by denying cost of improvement. The Ld. CIT(A), after due consideration of assessee’s submissions, observed that complete disallowance of cost of improvement was not justified. The matter would require thorough and objective examination ... none appeared for assessee. 2. We are of the considered opinion that the assessee had submitted various documents in support of claim of cost of improvement which were not examined by Ld. AO. The Ld. CIT(A) rightly noted that these documents, though submitted to AO, were not examined thoroughly

RAJESH SALUJA,MUMBAI vs. OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI

ITA 7177/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM

YERRAGUDI VENKATA SIVA REDDY,ANANTAPUR vs. ACIT., CIRCLE-1, KURNOOL

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1294/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1294/Hyd/2025 Assessment Year 2017-2018 Yerragudi Venkata Siva Reddy, Ananthapur The Acit, Vs. Pin – 515 001. Circle-1, Pan Aampy0365L Kurnool. Andhra Pradesh (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: -None- राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 17.02.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 20.02.2026 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: -None-For Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT-DR

Section 2(47)(ii)Section 48

demolition of the structure which is for the better value of the land in question, then the said expenditure would be considered as cost of improvement of the property. In other words, if the buyer desired to buy the plain land without any structure, then it is also