“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

Shankare Gowda, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(3)(3), Bangalore

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 323/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2018-19 Shankare Gowda No.2314/A/1681/A, Behind Bescom Office Subhash Nagara Ito Nelamangala Vs. Ward 4(3)(3) Bengaluru Rural 562 123 Bengaluru Karnataka Pan No : Bozpg9856G Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Sri Mohit Ashok Parmar, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Subramanian S., D.R

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 48

cost of acquisition claimed.On perusal of original and revised ITR filed by the assessee, the AO noticed that the assessee had claimed the cost of improvement in the Revised ITR, whereas the assessee did not claim the same in original ITR. Further, in the revised return, the assessee has declared ... full value of consideration amounting to Rs.19,42,50,000/-,claimed indexed cost of acquisition amounting to Rs.1,66,26,798/- and indexed cost of improvement amounting to Rs.3,87,47,848/-.During the course of the assessment proceedings, as the assessee could not provide documentary evidences in respect

Syed Irfan Hazari, Guntur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3), Guntur

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 305/VIZ/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Us:

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 44A

assessee had, against the aforesaid sale consideration, claimed as deduction viz., (i). indexed cost of acquisition: Rs.15,79,083/-; and (ii). indexed cost of improvement: Rs.4,32,431/-. Although, the assessee had substantiated the cost of purchase of the subject property based on registered purchase document No. 18150, dated ... furnished any proof in support of the indexed cost of improvement, 5 Syed Irfan Hazari therefore, the A.O. disallowed his claim for deduction of the indexed cost of improvement and reworked the long-term capital gain at Rs.1,60,917/- 8. Accordingly, the A.O., vide his order under Section

Kalpana Ravikumar, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-8(40, Chennai

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

ITA 1320/CHNY/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1320/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 Kalpana Ravikumar, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 78, Block 2, 2Nd Floor, Non Corporate Ward 8(4), Bbc City Paark, No. 76, Anna Salai, Chennai. Chinna Porur, Chennai 600 116. [Pan:Aiupr6455L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Raghav Rajeev Menon, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. V. Supraja, Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 16.07.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18.07.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 20.02.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 372 Days. The Assessee Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons. Upon Hearing Both The Parties & On Examination Of The Said Affidavit As 2

For Appellant: Shri Raghav Rajeev Menon, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. V. Supraja, Addl.CIT

Section 148Section 250Section 54

well as payments made to the builders. He vehemently argued that the Assessing Officer did not allow the index cost and cost of improvement incurred by the assessee while computing the capital gains. The ld. AR drew our attention to e-proceeding response acknowledgement placed at page ... order, the Assessing Officer has not allowed the claim of deduction under section 54 of the Act towards index cost of acquisition and cost of improvement incurred by the assessee, the details of which, we find at pages 63, 63A & 63B of the paper book. On perusal of the assessment

Income Tax Officer, C.R. I P Estate, New Delhi vs. Millenium Meritech Private Limited, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is Allowed

ITA 3184/DEL/2024[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jul 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 234B

appeal :- 1) "Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.JCIT(Appeal) has rightly allowed the deduction of cost of improvement under the head Capital Gain amounting to Rs. 9,80,19,310/- claimed in its return of income, thereby ignoring the addition made ... Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld..JCIT(Appeal) has rightly allowed the deduction of cost of improvement under the head Capital Gain amounting to Rs. 9,80,19,310/- claimed in its return of income after considering it to be clerical error

Rajkumari Gulab Mani, Pune vs. Pr. CIT (Circle) 8, Pune

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

ITA 1482/PUN/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Jul 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1482/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2022-2023 Vs Pr. Cit, Circle 8, Pune Rajkumari Gulab Mani Solitaire Palms Gat No. 286P, Borhadewadi, Moshi, Pune-412105 Maharashtra Pan-Acypc7552M Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Akhilesh Srivastva

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 37

action is illegal as appellant has not claimed any deduction u/s 37, rather deduction claimed is a indexed cost of improvement uls 48 of IT Act and therefore entire disallowance is illegal and unwarranted. 3. Without prejudice to the above ground, on the facts and in the circumstances ... case and in law the learned Assessing Officer ought to have allowed the deduction for indexed cost of improvement of Rs. 3,11,50,307/- (actual cost is 1,80,80,935/-) incurred by the appellant in the FY 2011-12, from the sale of plot transaction offered for taxation

DCIT Circle 1(1) & Tps, Thrissur vs. Konuparamban Ouseph Ittoop, Potta Chalakkudy

In the result appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 257/COCH/2025[2013]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin15 Jul 2025

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Assessment Year:2013-14 Konuparamban Ouseph Ittoop .......... Appellant Potta, Thrissur – 680722. Pan: Aacpi9545G Vs. Dcit .......... Respondent Thrissur. Assessment Year:2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Sathish John Kanichai, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

Section 263

perusal of the assessment order, it would reveal that the addition of Rs.51,37,500/- was made by disallowance of cost of improvement while computing capital gains on sale of immovable property. On appeal before the CIT(A), CIT(A) remanded the matter back to the file ... with a direction to give the benefit of cost of improvement based on the evidence produced by the assessee and also grant the benefit of indexation of cost of improvement and also to give the credit of Rs. 20 lakhs being the income declared during the course of the survey

Gopalakrishnan Pukalakkat Balakrishnan, Ernakulam vs. Assistant Commissioner, Non Corp Circle 2(1), Kochi

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

ITA 295/COCH/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin15 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2016-17

For Respondent: Shri Sherry S Oommen

Section 143(3)Section 57

payment could be set off as against the said income. Insofar as the computation of the capital gains, the Ld.AR submitted that the cost of improvement and the expenditure were wholly and exclusively incurred in connection with the transfer of the properties and therefore the same are entitled for deduction

Gopala Krishna Narendra Babu, Bengaluru vs. DCIT, Circle-3(3)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 283/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Paresh S Shah, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, JCIT-DR

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250

basis of computation of income, the assessee was asked to provide various details such as copy of the purchase deed, details of cost of improvements along with bills & vouchers, bank statement and mode of payment, details of selling expenses, details of housing loan interest of Rs. 2 Lakhs claimed under

Lalit Prakash, Lucknow vs. CIT(A), Lucknow

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 474/LKW/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow04 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2020-21 Lalit Prakash V. The Cit(A) 8A/292, Vrindavan Yojana Lucknow Raebareilly Road Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aivpp9819K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Santosh Verma, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R. O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Santosh Verma, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R

full value consideration of Rs.17,80,000/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny to verify the claim of cost of improvement of Rs.11,99,350/- in computing the Long Term Capital Gains and ITA No.474/LKW/2024 Page 2 of 6 the source of investment of Rs.5 ... immovable property for a sale consideration of Rs.17,80,000/- and after claiming indexed cost of acquisition of Rs.5,78,000 and indexed cost of improvement of Rs.11,99,350/-, declared a Long Term Capital Gain of Rs.2650/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee submitted that the indexed

Netmatrix Crop Care Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-5(1), Hyderabad

ITA 599/HYD/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Jul 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Us:

For Appellant: Shri Jaydeep, C.AFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR

Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 50BSection 54E

worth" of the undertaking or the division, as the case may be, shall be deemed to be the cost of acquisition and the cost of improvement for the purposes of sections 48 and 49 and no regard shall be given to the provisions contained in the second proviso to section

Bipinbhai Chhaganbhai Jodhani, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 3(3)(1), Surat

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

ITA 919/SRT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat03 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.919/Srt/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Bipinbhai Chhaganbhai The Ito बनाम/ Jodhani Ward-3(3)(1) 21, Swetrajhans Society Surat – 395 001 V/S. Khodiyar Nagar Road Varachha Road Surat – 395 006 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Addpj 9297 Q (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mehul Patel, Ar Revenue By : Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 07/04/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 03/07/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Dated 28/06/2024 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-2018. Bipinbhai Chhaganbhai Jodhani Vs. Ito Asst. Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Patel, ARFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr.DR

Section 24Section 24bSection 250Section 48

evidence on record, the learned National Faceless Appeal Centre (NEAC) has grievously erred in confirming the disallowance of claim of Indexed cost of Improvement of Rs.30,01,463/- made u/s 48 of the Act, while computing the Long Term Capital Gains. (2) That on facts, in law, and on evidence ... computation of capital gain/loss the assessee had claimed Indexed cost of acquisition of Rs.1,38,20,549/- and Indexed cost of improvement of Rs.30,01,463/-. The details of property and computation was as under:- Particular of Sale Indexed Indexed cost Capital gain Property Price/year Cost/year of improvement Flat No.604

Dushyant Bharatbhai Mehta, Rajkot vs. ITO WD-(2)(1)(2), Rajkot

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

ITA 422/RJT/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Jun 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.422/Rjt/2024 (निर्धारणवर्ष / Assessment Year: (2015-16) Dushyant Bharatbhai Mehta (Physical Hearing) C/O Bhabha Fashions 34/35 Bhabha Bazzar, Ghee Kanta Road, Vs. The Ito, Ward -2(1)(2), Aaykar Bhawan, Rajkot Rajkot 360001 (Gujarat) स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ahgpm4763P (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By Respondent By : Shri Vijay Mehta, Ld. Ar : Shri Abhimanyu Singh, Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 01/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/06/2025 आदेश / Order Per, Dr. A. L. Saini, Am: By Way Of This Appeal, The Assessee Has Challenged Correctness Of The Order Dated 27-05-2024 Passed By The Learned Cit(A), In The Matter Of Assessment Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961, For The

For Respondent: Shri Vijay Mehta, Ld. AR

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 54Section 54BSection 54F

executing any transfer deed or getting the sale officially registered. This transfer was only Rs. 37,01,000/-. The assessee thereafter showed huge cost of improvement in the development of the new acquired property and the entire sum was claimed as exempt u/s. 54 of the Act, thus, reducing

Harcharan Singh, Kanpur vs. Income Tax Officer-2(5), Kanpur

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

ITA 201/LKW/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudharyआयकर अपील सं/ Ita No.201/Lkw/2022 ननिाारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2013-14 Harcharan Singh V. Ito-2(5) 118/208, Kaushalpuri, Kanpur- Kanpur 208012. Pan:Anxps2189N अपीलार्थी/(Appellant) प्रत्यर्थी/(Respondent) अपीलार्थी कक और से/Appellant By: None प्रत्यर्थी कक और से /Respondent By: Shri Deepak Yadav, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई कक तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 10 06 2025 घोर्णा कक तारीख/ Date Of 30 06 2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Deepak Yadav, CIT(DR)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 50C

Cost of acquisition of property (Part purchased in 2007-8) Index Cost of Acquisition 1050300 x 852/551 Rs.16,24,057 Less: Cost of improvement incurred in 2004-05 Rs.90,00,000 Index Cost of improvement 9000000 x 852/480 Rs.1,59,75,000 Total Long Term Capital Gain Rs.1 ... Rs.90,00,000/- on the said land. The indexed value of this investment of Rs.90,00,000/- was claimed as part of cost of improvement and was allowed also by AO. However, had to conclude that: “He submitted the copies of Sale/purchase deeds, and computation of capital gain which

Gokul Prasad Patel, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-13(3), Hyderabad

ITA 353/HYD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Us:

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 50CSection 64(1)(iv)

Deed” dated 24.08.2011, had while computing his income under the head “capital gain” claimed deduction of the cost of acquisition (indexed) and the cost of improvement (indexed) both in A.Y. 2004– 3 Gokul Prasad Patel, Hyderabad. 05 and A.Y. 2012–13, which was not allowable, thus, holding a bona fide ... Long Term Capital Gains ("LTCG") on the said amount once again raised the claim for deduction of the “cost of acquisition” (indexed) and cost of improvement (indexed) in the subject year, i.e., A.Y. 2012-13, initiated proceedings u/s 147 of the Act. 7. As the A.O. vide his order passed

Bhim Sain Gupta, Delhi vs. Assistant Commisioner of Income Tax, Circle - 47(1), New Delhi

In the result, impugned order is set aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1574/DEL/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanआअसं.1574/ िद"ी /2024 (िन.व. 2010-11) Bhim Sain Gupta, K-736, Gadaipur Road, Mehrauli, Delhi 110030 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Adkpg-7977-R बनाम Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Central Circle-47(1), New Delhi Assessee By : Shri Manish Upneja, Chartered Accountant & Ms. Sanju Kumari, Advocate Department By: Shri Ashish Tripathi, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 16/04/2025 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : : 16/04/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against An Ex-Parte Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [In Short ‘The Cit(A)] Dated 06.03.2024, For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case As Emanating From Records Are: The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income For The Impugned Assessment Year Declaring Loss Of Rs.2,61,92,280/-. Subsequently, Assessment For Ay 2010-11 Was Reopened & Notice U/S. 148 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961(Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Act')

For Appellant: Shri Manish Upneja, Chartered Accountant &For Respondent: Shri Ashish Tripathi, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148

Rs.1,54,00,000/- under the head Long Term Capital Gains. ii. Rs.2,25,06,975/- after rejecting assessee's claim on cost of improvements. iii. Rs.1,69,10,271/- after rejecting assessee’s claim of business loss and treating the same as speculative. 3. Aggrieved by the assessment order

DCIT, Central Circle-19, New Delhi vs. Add Lounge Services Pvt. Ltd.(Formerly Known Skylark Hospitality India Pvt. Ltd.), New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 974/DEL/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Amitabh Shukladcit, Vs. M/S. Add Lounge Service Pvt. Ltd, Central Circle-19, (Formerly Known Skylark New Delhi Hospitality India Pvt. Ltd, 404, 4Th Floor, Surya Kiran Building, 19 Kg Marg, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aalcs7159J

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR

Section 154Section 32

hold improvements. As per brief factual matrix of the case the Assessee had procured a premise on lease and claimed depreciation on the cost of improvements made by it for utilization of the impugned property. 3. Per contra the ld DR placed reliance upon the order

Samir Narain Bhojwani, Mumbai vs. DCIT 4(2)(1), Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 261/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jun 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar & Chaitanya

Section 112Section 194CSection 250Section 37(1)Section 40Section 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

ACIT 421 Mumbai, Mumbai City vs. Samir Narain Bhojwani, Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the

ITA 1022/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jun 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

Section 112Section 194CSection 250Section 37(1)Section 40Section 50

Girish Parakh, Chennai vs. ACIT, Ncc-10(1), Chennai

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

ITA 1221/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1221/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Girish Parakh, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Old 9, New 11, 1St Floor, Income Tax, Vivekananda Street, Chetpet, Non Corporate Circle 10(1), Chennai 600 031. Chennai. [Pan:Aacpp7199P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri D. Anand, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Vijay Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 18.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25.06.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi:

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 154

capital gains, the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee claimed expenses on transfer towards sale of property at ₹.2,20,000/- and cost of improvement at ₹.1,15,013/-. Since the assessee has not produced any details, the Assessing Officer disallowed the expenses ... appeal, by considering the documentary evidence furnished by the assessee in respect of improvement made, the ld. CIT(A) deleted the indexed cost of improvement disallowed at ₹.1,15,013/-. Since the assessee could not furnish the documentary evidence for expenses on transfer towards sale of property

Vivek Kumar Rana, Patna vs. Assessement Unit, Delhi

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

ITA 115/PAT/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Patna24 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 115/Pat/2025 Assessment Year: 2016-2017 Vivek Kumar Rana,…….……….………..………Appellant 101, Artak Apartment, Ashiana Road, B.V. College, S.O. Rukanpura, Patna-800014, Bihar [Pan:Adhpr8630D] -Vs.- Assessment Unit, Delhi,………………….…....Respondent Ito/Nfac, Delhi Appearances By: Shri Manish Sinha, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: June 17, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: June 24, 2025 O R D E R

Section 139Section 271(1)(c)

sale deed of the property sold. The assessee did not come up with any information regarding the calculation of LTCG and the cost of improvement of Rs.11,70,510/- on the property claimed by the assessee by any documents, therefore, not being satisfied, the ld. Assessing officer added back