← 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

Vinod Nihalchand Jain, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 41(3)(4), Mumbai

ITA 6156/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singhshri Sandeep Singh Karhailvinod Nihalchand Jain Ltd., 28, 3Rd Floor, Vishvashanti Chs, Kedarmal Road, Malad (East), Mumbai – 400097 Maharashtra ……………. Appellant Pan – Acipj6853E

For Appellant: Shri Ravi DasijaFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr.DR
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 45

ground raised by the assessee on this issue. The learned CIT(A), however, directed the AO to consider the cost of acquisition and cost of improvement, if any, and allow the deduction accordingly. The relevant findings of the learned CIT(A), vide impugned order, in this regard are reproduced

Pravin Babanrao Tambe, Pune vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-4, Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed as not maintainable

ITA 692/PUN/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.692/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Pravin Babanrao Tambe, Vs. Pcit, Pune-4. Sr. No.14, Shree Datta Colony, Akashwani, Hadapsar, Pune- 411028. Pan : Aimpt5087G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Deepa Khare Revenue By : Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari Date Of Hearing : 12.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 31.03.2021 Passed By Ld. Pr.Cit, Pune- 4 [‘Ld. Pcit’] U/S 263 Of The It Act For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. Ld Cit Erred In Law & On Facts In Invoking Jurisdiction Under Section 263 & Setting Aside Assessment Order For Fresh Assessment On The Ground That Assessment Has Been Framed

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 263Section 48

erred in law and on facts in holding that the expenditure incurred is not in connection with transfer nor any cost of improvement. 4. The Order of the Id CIT being unjustified in law and on facts may kindly be cancelled. 5. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, modify

Nagajyothi Myneni, Hyderabad vs. ADIT., (Int Taxn)-1, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 109/HYD/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Mar 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA P Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

Kumari for reimbursement of charges paid to Jayabheri Meadows and receipt of Rs.61,86,777/- by Mrs. Atluri Laxmi Surya Kumari, disallowance of cost of improvement of Rs.38,03,780/- paid to S. Naga Basi Reddy towards furniture works which is through banking channel and also not implemented the directions ... prove payment to Nagabasi Reddy brothers for carrying-out interior works, in our considered view, the said payment partakes the nature of cost of improvement to the building and the same needs to be allowed as cost of acquisition and improvement while computing long term capital gains from the sale

Samit Ashok Soniminde, Mumbai vs. Int Tax Commissioner of Income Tax-4(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2763/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Br Baskaranhon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosainsamit Ashok Soniminde Vs. Ito – 4(2)(1) 2302 Solitaire, Adi Room No. 1704, 17Th Shankarachary Marg Floor Air India, Bldg, Powai, Mumbai – 400076. Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400021. Pan/Gir No. Aybps9158C (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 144Section 263Section 270A

understand the additions made by the AO in the assessment order. The AO has made additions towards disallowance of cost of improvement claimed against computation of long term capital gains derived from sale of property. The AO has disallowed cost of improvement on the ground that the assessee ... furnished supporting documentary evidence to substantiate his claim towards cost of improvement. Except this, there is no observation in the assessment order regarding unsustainability of claim made by the assessee towards cost of improvement. From the above, what we understand is that although the AO has made additions towards disallowance

Sheo Ram, Yamuna Nagar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-4, Yamuna Nagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 125/CHANDI/2024[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh06 Mar 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Goel, CA and Shri Dhruv Goel, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 148

claim of exemption u/s. 54B & 54F of the Act, considering fair market value of property and relating to grant of benefit of cost of improvement of land} cannot be adjudicated at this juncture. These issues are, therefore, also restored to the Assessing Officer to be adjudicated upon afresh after deciding

Banarsi Das Shyam Sunder, Bazaza Bazar vs. PCIT, Income Tax Department

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 722/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 722/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Banarsi Das Shyam Sunder Bazaza Bazar, Alwar बनाम Vs. PCIT, Income Tax Department स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AAQFB 3593 D अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by : Sh. Kranti Mehta, CA राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by : Sh. P. P. Meena, CIT सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 05/02/2025 उदघ

For Appellant: Sh. Kranti Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Sh. P. P. Meena, CIT
Section 133ASection 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

without application of mind." Further in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax V/s Paville Projects (P) Ltd, the A.O had allowed the cost of Improvement to the assessee which was not as per law, the Hon'ble Apex Court upheld the action of the Commissioner of Income

Shrijay Agro Pvt. Ltd., Satara vs. ITO, Ward-2, Satara

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 41/PUN/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Mar 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.41/Pun/2025 धििाारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2022-2023 Shrijay Agro Private Limited, Vs Ito, Ward-2, Plot No. 6, Uttekar Nagar, Satara Sardar Bazar, Satara-415001 Maharashtra Pan-Aancs1143E Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Smt Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 50C

received and furnished before him. 4. The Id CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of not allowing cost of improvement as claimed by the appellant. 5. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, modify or substitute any ground of appeal at the time

Sheela Deepak Gundecha, Pune vs. ITO Ward 2(1), Pune

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

ITA 1498/PUN/2024[2011-12]Status: PendingITAT Pune05 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Pawar
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 54

u/s.54 of the Act. In the course of the assessment, ld. AO asked the assessee to produce supporting evidences in respect of cost of improvement for the years 1985, 1995 and 2007. The assessee submitted the details of cost of acquisition however expressed inability to produce purchase bills, expense vouchers ... expenses, invoices of various expenditure, sathe karar, purchase deed, balance sheet, profit and loss account etc., before the authorities and therefore the cost of improvement for 4 Sheela Deepak Gundecha the years 1985, 1995 and 2007 be considered and the benefit of exemption u/s.54 of the Act should also

Sushiladevi Parasmaljijain, Hubballi vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward -1(4), Hubli

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

ITA 2041/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Vishal S Rao, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate – Standing
Section 142(1)Section 234BSection 69A

Patel was utilized for acquiring the land property or not and consequently the assessee should be allowed the claim of interest expenses as cost of improvement or not. Therefore, considering the importance of the additional evidence which has direct bearing on the outcome of the dispute, we hereby exercise

Zareena Syed, Kanyakumari vs. ITO, Ward 1, Kanyakumari

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

ITA 1141/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1141/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Income Tax Officer, Zareena Syed, V. Ward -1, 20/7, Hawa Avenue Street No. Nagercoil. 10, Vedakaran Kudiyiruppu, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari – 629 002. [Pan: Abgpz-7612-L ] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. Y. Sridhar, Fca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12.02.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28.02.2025 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. Y. Sridhar, FCAFor Respondent: Shri. R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69Section 69A

facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT (A) has erred both in law and facts without giving relief of the indexed cost of improvements over the vacant land held by the appellant since the year 1990 in LTCG computation, namely, construction of compound walls around the land, installing ... erred in confirming the order of the AO, who, vide his order dated 18/12/2019 intended to consider 50% of the claim of cost of improvement, however, the entire cost of improvement (Rs.22,50,418/-) was disallowed. 6.The ld. CIT (A) has erred in not considering the detailed explanation and supporting

Sanjeev Kumar Kathuria, Yamuna Nagar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1, Yamunanagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 329/CHANDI/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Jain, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(3)

value of consideration the 'indexed cost of acquisition' and the 'indexed cost of any improvement' instead of deducting the 'cost of acquisition' and 'cost of improvement'. [Para 12] In the instant case, the capital asset in question was originally acquired by the previous owner (daughter ... where the capital asset became the property of the assessee by any of the modes specified under section 49(1) not only the cost of improvement incurred by the assessee but also the cost of improvement incurred by the previous owner shall be deducted from the total consideration received

Vijeta Trading Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 206/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankarvs. Cit, (Appeals), Vijeta Trading Pvt. Ltd. Nfac, Office No.64,3Rd Floor Poddar Chambers, 23 Parsi Bazar Street, Fort Mumbai – 4000001. Pan/Gir No. Aabcv1137H (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 250Section 254Section 55A

respectively. With regard to property J-3, the A.O did not allow the cost of improvement as per the assessee's calculation of Rs 35,67,524/- due to want of evidence, and hence computed the undisclosed capital gains ... evidence to prove its veracity. Similarly, with regard to Office J-3, the appellant neither submitted any evidence with regard to the cost of improvement of Rs 35,67,524/-before the A.O, and in these proceedings has remained completely silent on this issue and hence the action

Rajesh Mangla, Faridabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle-II, Faridabad

The appeals are allowed

ITA 2815/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2013-14 Vs. Dcit, Rajesh Mangla, H. No. 536, Sector-14, Central Circle-Ii, Faridabad Faridabad Pin: 121 007 Assessment Year: 2013-14

Section 132(1)(A)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 234BSection 271A

erred in law and on facts in making addition of Rs. 3,42,970/- on account of alleged long term indexation on the cost of improvement. 12. That in any view of the matter and in any case, the addition of Rs. 3,42,970/- made in the assessment order ... capital gain the assessee has shown Long Term Capital Loss Rs. 14051/-after claiming in indexation benefit on the cost of purchase and cost of improvement. The cost of improvement is shown at Rs.3,25,000/- up to 28.07.2000 but no evidence is filed to show that the shop were

Sharad Ramgonda Patil, Sangli vs. I.T.O, Ward-1, Sangli

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

ITA 2566/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri B.C. MalakarFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai, Addl CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148

Rs.1,13,93,000/-. The AO in his order mentions that the appellant has not furnished the cost of acquisition, or the cost of improvement involved, and hence these values were taken as "Nil", and the entire consideration received, of Rs.1,13,93,000/- was brought to tax as Long ... Assessment Centre, Delhi in the assessment order of Rs.1,13,93,000/- on account of Long Term Capital Gains without allowing the Indexed Cost of Improvement as eligible to the appellant for computation of correct income from Long Term Capital Gains. The lower authorities be directed to allow due Indexed

Vicki Electronics, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-31(3)()5), Mumbai

ITA 1581/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankarvs. Income Tax Officer Vicki Electronics, Gala 31(3)(5), Bandra Kurla No. 23, Back Side Complex, Sidhpura Industrial Mumbai –400051 Estate, Off. S.V. Road, Goregaon (W), Mumbai – 400062. Pan/Gir No. Aaafv0824B (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 50Section 55A

Ground no.3 is relating to the repair expenses incurred by the appellant in cash amounting to Rs.30,13,035/- which was claimed as cost of improvement in working STCG on sale of property. According to the AO, when he called for the details of cost of improvement incurred ... book. As the appellant failed to substantiate the claim through proper documentary evidences, the AO rejected the claim of the appellant towards the cost of improvement claimed to have been incurred by the appellant amounting to Rs.30,13,035/- 12.1 During the appellate proceedings, the appellant submitted that

Annamma Rajive, Kollam vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle Central, Kollam

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

ITA 778/COCH/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Sri.Surendranath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 153A

Income-tax Act. Theld.CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. However, sustained the addition of Rs.4,20,815 pertaining to the cost of improvements of that asset on which assessee claimed STCG. 4. Aggrieved with the order of the ld.CIT(A), the assessee has come up in appeal

Geetadevi Badrinarayan Panpaliya, Nagpur vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Nagpur

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 477/NAG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur17 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh LoyaFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 48Section 50CSection 54Section 54E

above two (sec. 50C) Less: Indexed Cost of Acquisition (235200 x 939/100) 22,08,528 (Cost as on 01/04/1981 – ` 2,35,000 Indexed Cost of improvement in 1981–82 9,62,006 (1,02,450 x 939 / 100) 3 Geetadevi Badrinarayan Panpaliya ITA no.477/Nag./2024 Indexed Cost of improvement ... Indexed Cost of improvement in 1990–91 (1,48,300 x 939/116) Indexed Cost of improvement in 1990–91 (1,70,700 x 939 / 182) 8,80,699 30,43,168 4,21,450 1,91,23,304 Long Term Capital Gain 95,61,652 (Rs.19123304 x 50.00% Share

Yogendra Kumar Gupta, Gwalior vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(1) Gwl, Gwalior

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

ITA 176/AGR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra12 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: : Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 48Section 50

provided any details in this regard the value of transfer is being taken/mentioned as per sale deeds) = 4,22,170/- (c). Cost of improvement(assessee has not provided any details in this regard) = NIL (d). Capital gain ... provided any details in this regard the value of transfer is being taken/mentioned as per sale deeds) = 4,22,170/- (c). Cost of improvement(assessee has not provided any details in this regard) = NIL (d). Capital gain

Surendra Kumar Mishra, Allahabad vs. ACIT, Cir-2, Allahabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 140/ALLD/2023[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad10 Feb 2025AY 2002-03

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2002-03 Surendra Kumar Mishra, Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of 794A/1, Sohabatiyabagh, Income Tax, Circle-2, Allahabad Allahabad-211006, U.P. Pan:Aibpm4858R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Ashish Bansal, Advocate Revenue By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 14.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 10.02.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Under Section 250 R.W.S. 254 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 26.10.2023. The Grounds Of Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Are As Under:- “1. Because The Cit(A) Has Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Dismissing The 'Additional Ground' Relating To Non-Issuance Of Notice Under Section 143(2) Of The Act, Raised Before The Appellate Authority During The Course Of First Round Of Litigation, Which Has Been Remanded Back By The Hon'Ble Itat In Terms Of Order Dated 09.11.2012, By Observing That The Return Filed By The Appellant In Terms Of Letter Dated 10.11.2008 As Not A Valid Return In Compliance To Notice Dated 11.02.2008 Issued Under Section 148 Of The Act, As The Said Letter Was Filed By The Appellant After The Time Limit Of 30 Days Provided To Do So In Terms Of Notice Dated 11.02.208 Issued Under Section 148 Of The Act. 2. Because The Cit(A) Has Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Observing That The Appellant Could Not Have Demand For Issuance Of Notice Under Section 143(2) Of The 1 Surendra Kumar Mishra

For Appellant: Sh. Ashish Bansal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 250Section 69C

BECAUSE without prejudice to the contentions raised in grounds No. 8 & 10 above, payment of 'free hold charges' should have been considered as 'cost of improvement of the 'Capital asset' and the same should have entered into the computation of 'Capital Gain' under section 48 of the Act. 12. BECAUSE ... this proposition. Furthermore, it was submitted that the payment of free hold charges should have been considered as, ‘cost of improvement’ of the, ‘capital asset’ and the same should have been taken into account in that manner in the computation of capital gains. Furthermore, the assessee should have been allowed

Amita Singh, Lucknow vs. ITO Range-6(1), Lucknow

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

ITA 441/LKW/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow06 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 144Section 144ASection 147Section 249(3)

from Sale of Immoveable Property as Long Term Capital Gain without allowing the benefit of Purchase Cost as Cost of Acquisition and Cost of Improvements. I.T.A. No.441/Lkw/2024 Assessment Year:2015-16 3 4. That the Authorities below erred in not considering that the entire Sale Consideration cannot be treated ... Long Term Capital Gain and the cost of Acquisition and cost of Improvement ought to have been allowed from the Sale Consideration. 5. That the Authorities below erred on facts and in law in not allowing the credit of TDS of Rs.1,30,000/- deducted on Sale of Immoveable Property