← All Phrases

“cost of improvement”

Capital GainsSection 55Section 55749 judgments

The decision most relied on for cost of improvement is CIT v. Kasturi Estates (P.) Ltd. (62 ITR 578), cited in 25 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on cost of improvement

CIT v. Kasturi Estates (P.) Ltd.
62 ITR 578 · 1966 · High Court
25
citing judgments

Expenditure incurred to improve property before sale, such as dividing land into plots and laying roads, does not constitute an adventure in the nature of trade if the primary purpose is to obtain a better price for the property.

Arunachalam v. CIT
227 ITR 222 · 1997 · Supreme Court
22
citing judgments

Expenditure incurred by an assessee to discharge a mortgage created by a previous owner is an allowable deduction in computing capital gains, as it represents the cost of acquisition or perfecting an imperfect title. The assessee's payment to clear the encumbrance is not deductible for capital gains computation.

Commissioner of Income-tax v. Miss Piroja C. Patel
242 ITR 582 · 2000 · High Court
12
citing judgments

Compensation paid to hutment dwellers for vacating land is an allowable expenditure in computing capital gains, as it relates to the transfer of the asset. Such payments are considered a cost of acquisition or improvement under Section 48 read with Section 55 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Naozar Chenoy v. CIT
234 ITR 95 · 1998 · High Court
11
citing judgments

Expenditure incurred to pay tenants to vacate premises, which are the subject of a sale transaction, is allowable as a deduction in computing capital gains. This is because the expenditure is directly connected to and necessary for effecting the transfer of the property.

Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. v. DCIT, 313 ITR (AT) 263 (SB)
110 ITD 59 · 2008 · ITAT
10
citing judgments

The Assessing Officer cannot improve his assessment by adopting a new theory during reassessment proceedings.

Mrs. June Perrett v. Income-tax Officer
298 ITR 268 · 2008 · High Court
10
citing judgments

Payment made to secure an order of eviction and evict an unauthorized occupant can be treated as a cost of improvement.

Judgments citing cost of improvement

Kailas Kalyan Creators Private Limited, Ahmedabad vs. ITO Ward 2(1)(1), 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

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

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), 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