“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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hamid Ali, Rohtas vs. ITO, Ward- 3 (4), Sasaram

In the result, ITA No.356/Pat/2025 is partly allowed for statistical purposes and ITA No

ITA 356/PAT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Patna10 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Rakesh Mishraita Nos.356 & 357/Pat/2025 Assessment Years: 2018-19 Hamid Ali…..……………..……………………….……….……….……Appellant C/O Gulam Murtaza Zakki Shaheed, Sasaram, Rohtas, Bihar – 821115. [Pan: Atppa8563N] Vs. Ito, Ward-3(4), Sasaram.…………………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri A.K. Rastogi, Sr. Adv. & Shri Rakesh Kumar, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 06, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 10, 2025 Order Per Madhumita Roy: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Both Dated 12.12.2024 Passed By Nfac, Delhi Arising Out Of The Orders Dated 23.02.2021 & 23.08.2021 Passed U/S 143(3) & U/S 270A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”] Respectively For Assessment Year 2018-19. Ita No.356/Pat/2025 Relates To Quantum Order Whereas Ita No.357/Pat/2025 Relates To Penalty Order.

Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 50C(2)(a)Section 53C

taking stamp duty value as per his consideration for calculation of long- term capital gains, the assessee has not furnished any reply on cost of improvement and not assigned any reason for taking stamp value as his consideration for calculation of long-term capital gains. However, the purchase deed

Incometax Officer, Ward-3(1), Visakhapatnam vs. Surendra Nath Gubbala, Visakhapatnam

ITA 482/VIZ/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam10 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Us:

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 48

transfer of property. c)As a principle, the amount spent to get rid of any liability or encumbrance cannot be regarded as cost of improvement of a capital asset. d) Since the buyer has directly paid the amount to the creditor banks, the same is not deductible in computing ... does not take the character of the amount spent to get rid of any liability or encumbrance so as to be treated as ‘cost of improvement’ of the property transferred. The payment of amounts of Rs. 2.00 crores, Rs. 3.50 crores and Rs. 3.50 crores made directly by the purchaser

Rajendraa Sakunthala, Coimbatore vs. ACIT, Ncc-2, Coimbatore

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1624/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri. Sudharshan, Advocate for Shri. S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, C.I.T

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 50C

offered to tax. 7. In the return filed in response to the notice u/s.148 of the Act, the assessee had claimed transfer expenses, cost of improvement, and deductions under sections 54F and 54EC of the Act. However, the NaFAC observed that the assessee had failed to furnish documentary evidence

Ashwani Kumra, Chandigarh vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Chandigarh

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 718/CHANDI/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh07 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No. 718/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Shri Ashwani Kumra Acit-Ward 2(1) बनाम/ Sco 338, Motor Market Aaykar Bhawan, Sector-17 Vs. Manimajra – 160101 Chandigarh – 160017 "ायीलेखासं /. जीआइआरसं /. Pan/Gir No. Adppk-2516-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" /Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/Appellant By : Sh. Deepak Aggarwal (Advocate) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Vivek Vardhan (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 22-09-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 07/10/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2013- 14 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 15-05-2024 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S. 144 R.W.S. 147 Of The Act On 29-03-2022. The Sole Issue That Arises For Our Consideration Is Computation Of Capital Gains. Having Heard Rival Submissions & Upon Perusal Of Case Records, The Appeal Is Disposed-Off As Under. The Assessee Has Also Filed Written Submissions Which Have Duly Been Considered While Adjudicating The Appeal.

For Appellant: Sh. Deepak Aggarwal (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 144Section 148Section 263Section 54Section 54F

Motor Market and Commercial Complex, Manimajra, Chandigarh. The net LTCG were thus computed at Rs.21.11 Lacs. However, in another statement, the assessee claimed cost of improvement for Rs.20.28 Lacs for which no supporting documents were furnished by the assessee. The assessee furnished 6 receipts, out of which 5 receipts pertained ... installment payment, enhanced compensation payment and extension fees payment which, by no stretch of imagination, could be considered as cost of improvement and accordingly, the same was denied to the assessee. 2.3 Towards claim of deduction u/s 54, the assessee pleaded that it purchased a property situated at SCF No.333

Prithvi Pal Singh Lamba, Rohtak vs. ITO, New Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 4564/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 4564/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Prithvi Pal Singh Lamba, Vs Income Tax Officer, House No. 1238, Subhash Nagar, Ward-50(3), Rohtak, Haryana-124001 New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabpl0050C Assessee By: None Revenue By : Ms. Ambika Agarwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 07.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 07.10.2025 Order This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2012-13, Arises Against The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2025-26/1076483764 (1) Dated 27.05.2025, In Proceedings U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Ambika Agarwal, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 69A

making 2 Prithvi Pal Singh Lamba twin additions of unexplained money u/s 69A amounting to Rs.15,00,000/- and disallowance of cost of improvement to the tune of Rs.20,23,447/-; respectively. There is further no dispute that the learned CIT(A)/NFAC has deleted the above section 69A addition ... Rs.15,00,000/- in the lower appellate proceedings. It is thus clear in this factual backdrop that the impugned addition of cost of improvement nowhere formed subject matter of reopening reasons by the learned Assessing Officer. 4. That being the case, learned departmental representative vehemently argues that the tribunal ought

Baljit Singh Gambhir, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, International Taxation, Ward-2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 912/MUM/2025[2019-20 ]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.912/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2019-20) Baljit Singh Gambhir V/S. Income Tax Officer, C/O Tejmohan Singh, बिधम International Taxation, Advocate 527, Sector Ward 2(3)(1), Mumbai 10-D, Chandigarh Income Tax Officer, 160011 International Taxation, Ward 2(3)(1), Mumbai 400076 स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Amgpg9637H Appellant/अपीलधथी .. Respondent/प्रनिवधदी निर्धाररिी की ओर से /Assessee By: Shri. Tejomohan Singh, Adv. रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Shri. Krishna Kumar (Sr Dr) सुिवधई की िधरीख / Date Of Hearing 29.07.2025 घोर्णध की िधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement 30.09.2025

For Appellant: Shri. Tejomohan Singh, AdvFor Respondent: Shri. Krishna Kumar (SR DR)

Section 144C(5)Section 148Section 148A

explanations rendered which is arbitrary and unjustified. 4. That the Ld. Assessing Officer has arbitrarily reduced the cost of acquisition and cost of improvement as well as the date of acquisition of the property for the purpose of calculation indexation in utter disregard of the evidence placed on record which ... these transactions, LTCG was declared at Rs. 138,69,272 after reducing indexed cost of acquisition and indexed cost of improvement. After giving opportunity to the assessee to submit complete details alongwith supporting documentary evidences, which the assessee could not fully comply with, ld. AO computed the capital gains

Ayyub Jafri, Lucknow vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax-6, Lucknow

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

ITA 177/LKW/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow26 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SH. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Kumar, DR

Section 143(3)Section 54FSection 80J

circumstances of the case the order of Ld. CIT(A) is bad in law in not allowing deduction of Rs.15,04,028.00/-representing cost of improvement of land viz. Land Filling and Levelling incurred from time to time from Sale Consideration for 1 Ayyub Jafri A.Y. 2016-17 determining Capita ... assessee that additional documents were required to examine the claim such as sale / purchase deeds, documents in support of claimed costs of improvement, evidence of deposit of sale consideration into capital gain accounts, bills and vouchers pertaining to cost of house constructed by you, details of parties to whom payments

Attur Muneerappa Krishnappa, Attur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1501/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2018-19 Attur Muneerappa Krishnappa No.58, Attur Layout, 6Th Main Attur Post, Yelahanka Ito Vs. Bangalore 560 064 Ward 6(1)(1) Bangalore Pan No : Ahopk0953D Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Sri Srinivasareddy B - Ca Respondent By : Sri Balusamy N, -Jcit Date Of Hearing : 24.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.09.2025

For Appellant: Sri Srinivasareddy B - CAFor Respondent: Sri Balusamy N, -JCIT

Section 147Section 148Section 250

ITA No.1501/Bang/2025 Attur Muneerappa Krishnappa, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A’’BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT

Tata Communications Limited, Mumbai vs. Principle Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai

In the result, the question of law referred to the Special Bench is answered in favour of the assessee

ITA 3515/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Arun Khodpiatata Communications Limited Pr. Cit, Videsh Sanchar Bhavan, Mumbai-1 Vs. M. G. Road, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 Pan/Gir No. Aaacv 2808 C (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri J. D. Mistri Respondent By : Shri Ritesh Misra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 25.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.09.2025 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey: The Present Appeal, At The Instance Of The Assessee, Assails Order Dated 21.03.2025, Passed U/S. 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ For Short), By Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (‘Ld. Pcit’ For Short), Pertaining To The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2018-19. 2. Though The Assessee Has Raised Multiple Grounds, Both On Jurisdictional Issues As Well As On Merits, However, There Is Consensus Between The Parties That The Appeal Can Be Decided On Merits, In Which Event, There Is No Need To Go Into Various Other Issues Raised In Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri J. D. MistriFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT DR

Section 112Section 143(3)Section 263Section 50

sections the capital gains are computed by deducting from the consideration received on transfer of a capital asset, the cost of acquisition, the cost of improvement and the expenditure incurred in connection with the transfer. The meaning of the expressions 'cost of improvement' and 'cost of acquisition' used in sections

Nikhil Baban Nimbalkar, Pune vs. ITO, Ward 14(5), Pune

In the result both appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2526/PUN/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं / Ita No.2525&2526/Pun/2024 धििेंारण वर्ा /Assessment Year: 2018-2019 & 2019-2020 Nikhil Baban Nimbalkar, Ito, Ward 14(5), Nimbalkar Hospital, Patas Pune Road, Baramati, Pune- Vs. 413102 Maharashtra Pan-Ajdpn1546Q अपीलेंर्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent Assessee By: Shri Pratik Sandbhor Department By: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde Date Of Hearing: 24-09-2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 06-10-2025 आदीश/Order Per Dr. Manish Borad:- This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 Dated 04.10.2024 Which Is Arising Out Of Order Passed U/S 147 R.W.S 144 Of The Act Dated 29.02.2024. 2. Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal In Ita No. 2525/Pun/2024:- 1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Id. Cit(A) Erred In Not Granting Sufficient Opportunities Of Hearing & Dismissing The Appeal Ex-Parte 2. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Appellant Prays Before The Hon'Ble Bench To Kindly Grant An Opportunity To Represent The Matter Before The Ld Cit(A).

For Appellant: Shri Pratik SandbhorFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 404(3)

circumstances of the case and in law and without prejudice to the above grounds of appeal the Assessing Officer erred in disallowing the cost of improvement of Rs 2,90,280/- in computing the capital gain on same of impugned property 6. On the facts and in the circumstances ... case and in law and without prejudice to the above grounds of appeal the Assessing Officer erred in disallowing the cost of improvement by invoking the provision of section 404(3) without taking cognizance of the fact that the said section has no applicability to computation of income under head

Nikhil Baban Nimbalkar, Pune vs. ITO, Ward 14(5), Pune

In the result both appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2525/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Pratik SandbhorFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 404(3)

Rohtash Kumar, Delhi vs. ITO, Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 5039/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 5039/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2018-19 Rohtash Kumar, Vs Income Tax Officer, Flat No. 66, New Pragatesheel Ward-62(1), Apartment, Vasundhara Enclave, New Delhi New Delhi-110096 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aukps4324B Assessee By: Ms. Uma Upadhaya, Ca & Sh. Pawan Garg, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 23.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 23.09.2025 Order This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2018-19, Arises Against The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2025-26/1078024419(1) Dated 30.06.2025, In Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: Ms. Uma Upadhaya, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 68

sole substantive issue between the parties herein, it is noticed that both the learned lower authorities have disallowed the assessee’s cost of improvement claim of Rs.27,00,000/- as unexplained cash credits u/s 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act, in assessment order dated 29.04.2021 and upheld in the lower ... Rohtash Kumar 4. The above being the clinching factual position, the Revenue could hardly dispute that the assessee had nowhere claimed the impugned cost of improvement amounting to Rs.27,00,000/- in the relevant previous year as the corresponding immovable property had been acquired in the preceding assessment year

Vipendra Ravindra Mandal, Thane vs. Income Tax Officer- Ward 22(3)(6), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1819/MUM/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2016-17 Vipendra Ravindra Mandal, Ito Ward 22(3)(6), 405, Orchid Wing-F Lodha Crown, Piramal Chamber, Taloja Bypass Road, Kohni B.O. Vs. Mumbai-400012. Khoni, Thane-421204. Pan No. Alepm 8472 H Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. V.P. KothariFor Respondent: Mr. Bhagirath Ramawat, Sr. DR

Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)(A)Section 54

computing the said gains, the assessee reduced the indexed cost of acquisition as well as the ind acquisition as well as the indexed cost of improvement from the sale exed cost of improvement from the sale consideration. Vipendra Ravindra Mandal Vipendra Ravindra Mandal 2.1 In the reassessment order dated ... absence of supporting documentary evidence, disallowed the absence of supporting documentary evidence, disallowed the absence of supporting documentary evidence, disallowed the indexed cost of improvement of ₹21,35,398/- while computing the indexed cost of improvement of while computing the long-term capital gain. The AO, however, allowed the claim

Sureshkumar Prabhulal Thakkar, Banaskantha vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-Gandhinagar, Gandhinagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1348/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2016-17

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

assessee was only 1/7th owner. The Assessing Officer found that no such expense was claimed by another co-owners on account of cost of improvement or for transfer expense. The assessee had explained that the cost of improvement was for levelling and earth work etc. and the transfer expense ... Mandhan, Ld. Sr. DR, submitted that the assessee did not dispute the addition of Rs.7,96,800/- in respect of transfer expense and cost of improvement, which was reduced from LTCG. This substantiated that the particulars of income as filed by the assessee were not correct. Therefore, the Assessing Officer

Muthyala Suryababu, Bengaluru vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore-1, Bangalore

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

ITA 854/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri H. Guruswamy, ITPFor Respondent: Shri Murali Mohan, CIT DR

Section 14Section 263Section 55

PCIT is of the opinion that the above expenditure towards property tax arrears would neither qualified as cost of acquisition nor as cost of improvement and thus the same need to be disallowed. After examination of the assessment record, the ld. PCIT observed that this aspect of whether the impugned ... expenditure of “arrears of property tax” is eligible to be allowed as Muthyala Suryababu Page 3 of 8 cost of acquisition or cost of improvement had not been verified and examined during the assessment proceedings. In view of the clause (a) of explanation 2 of section

Jiteshbhai Ramniklal Nagada, Jamnagar vs. ITO, Ward 2(6), Jamnagar

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessees, are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 46/RJT/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot10 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.39/Rjt/2025 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2014-15) Kantaben Ramniklal Nagda Vs. Ito, Wd- 2(6), Jamnagar Flat No. 603, K D Tower, Oswal Aayakar Bhavan, Nr. Subhash Bridge, Colony, Jamnagar Rajkot Highway, Jamnagar-361004 Jamnagar - 361001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Agtpn7366D (Assessee) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Dushyant Maharshi, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 2(14)Section 50CSection 56Section 68

erred in law by confirming addition made for Long Term Capital Gain of Rs. 16,80,923/- by Ld. AO by denying the cost of improvement for want of necessary supporting documents. 4. Hon'ble CIT (Appeals) erred in law by confirming addition u/s 50C for substituting Jantri value ... erred in law by confirming addition made for Long Term Capital Gain of Rs. 16,80,923/- by Ld. AO by denying the cost of improvement for want of necessary supporting documents. 4. Hon'ble CIT (Appeals) erred in law by confirming addition u/s 50C for substituting Jantri value

Kantaben Ramniklal Nagda, Jamnagar vs. ITO, Ward 2(6), Jamnagar

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessees, are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 39/RJT/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot10 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Dushyant Maharshi, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 2(14)Section 50CSection 56Section 68

Giriraj Prasad, Kota vs. Income Tax Officer, Bundi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 603/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Vinok Kumar Gupta, C.AFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148wSection 263Section 54F

sale of such property, the assessee claimed deduction u/s 54F of the Act for new House Property purchased for Rs.51,50,000/- and cost of improvement Rs.5,50,000/- regarding the newly purchased property. Resultantly, the assessee declared nil LTCG on captioned transaction. 2.2 The AO, during the course ... support of the claim of buying new residential property amounting toRs.51,50,000/- nor any documentary evidences in support of the claim regarding cost of improvement in the new property amounting toRs.5,50,000/- were submitted by the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings

Maruti Jakhuji Kude, Pune vs. ITO Ward 9(3) Pune, Pune

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

ITA 2255/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Ms.Astha Chandra

For Respondent: Appellant by Shri Mahavir Jain

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 2(14)Section 250

acquired even before 01.04.1981 and was accordingly long term assets. The Ld. AO also erred in not granting deduction for cost of acquisition, cost of improvements, indexation thereon. 7] The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or delete any of the above grounds of appeal.” 3. Brief facts

Abdulkadar Hajiahmed Vadiwala, Jamnagar vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Jamnagar

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee, is allowed

ITA 103/RJT/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot29 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.103/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2016-17 Abdulkadar Hajiahmed Vadiwala The Pr.Cit बनाम Maniar Street, Lindi Bazar Jamanagar. Jamnagar-361001 Vs. Pan : Aatpv 4729 Q (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) : (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ld.Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld.Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, ld.CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 263

taxability of income, rendering the order erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. No documentary evidence to support the cost of improvement claimed during Financial Year (FY) 2014-15 was submitted by the assessee before the assessing officer. The mismatch in turnover and stock figures between the profit ... there was lack of inquiry on the part of the assessing officer (AO) during the assessment proceedings, as the AO has not examined cost of improvement, turnover and stock figures in the profit & loss account. Therefore, the ld.Pr.CIT has rightly exercised his jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act. Abdulkadir