← 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

Ruhi Rana, Panchkula vs. ITO, Ward-3, Panchkula

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

ITA 352/CHANDI/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh14 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 352/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Ruhi Rana, The Ito, बनाम House No.858, Sector 4, Ward -3, Panchkula Panchkula Vs. C/O Vineet Gandhi & Vineet Thakral, Advocates, # 1491, Sector 4, Panchkula "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Cdrpr9229N अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent ( Physical Hearing ) "नधा""रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Vineet Thakral, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Add., Cit Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 06.03.2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 14.05.2025 आदेश/Order Per Krinwant Sahay, Am : Appeal In This Case Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 09.02.2024 Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax, National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For A.Y. 2018-19. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under: -

For Appellant: Shri Vineet Thakral, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Add., CIT Sr. DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 249Section 249(4)(b)Section 270A

failed to disclose Capital Gains on transactions of her property. No information has been furnished by her regarding cost of acquisition, cost of improvement etc. Hence, 352-Chd-2024 Ruhi Rana, Panchkula 3 total sale consideration amounting to Rs.54,45,000/- is considered as Capital Gains as no benefit ... cost of acquisition and cost of improvement may be allowed in this case. Addition of Rs.54,45,000/- is hereby made to the total income of the assessee under head 'Capital Gains' and penalty proceedings under section 270A of the Act are being initiated separately on this issue for under

Sadhna Sharma, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward 40(4), Delhi

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

ITA 132/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmansadhna Sharma, Vs. Ito, Ward 40 (4), C/O Malik & Co. (Advisors & Advocates), Delhi. S – 258, Greater Kailash – 1, New Delhi – 110 048. (Pan : Atvp0517Q) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Ramesh Chand, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 13.05.2025 Date Of Order : 13.05.2025 O R D E R Per S.Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Cit (A)] Dated 25.07.2023 For Assessment Year 2016-17 Raising Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. That In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Appellant-Assessee Denies Her Liability To Be Assessed At An Income Of Rs.1,20,87,440/- Against The Returned Income Of Rs.6,19,650/- & Thus Denies Its Liability To Pay Tax, Interest And/Or Penalty Thereon.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ramesh Chand, Sr. DR
Section 234ASection 250

That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO and the Ld, CIT(A) erred in disallowing the indexed cost of improvement of Rs.47,07,399/-. 5. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO and the Ld. CIT(A) erred in disallowing ... dispose off the appeal on the basis of material available on record and sustained the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer on indexed cost of improvement and index cost of acquisition. 4. Ld. DR of the Revenue relied on the orders of the authorities below. 3 5. Considered the submissions