← 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

Shri Kirankumar Rasiklal Sanghvi, Deesa vs. The Pr.CIT-4, Ahmedabad

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 179/AHD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarिनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 Shri Kirankumar Rasiklal Sanghvi, The Principal Commissioner Of 1, Paras Society, Neminathnagar Income-Tax-4, Vs. Road, Deesa, Gujarat-385535 Ahmedabad Pan : Afops 0131 D अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" "" "" यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" Assessee By : Shri Manish J. Shah & Shri Rushin Patel, Ars Revenue By : Shri Durga Dutt, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12.09.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 24.09.2024 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Annapurna Gupta: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax-4, Ahmedabad [Herein- After Referred To As “Pcit”] Dated 03.03.2020, In Exercise Of His Revisionary Powers Under Section 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”], For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16. 2. The Registry Has Noted The Present Appeal To Be Barred By Limitation By 1355 Days. The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Explained That There Was, In Fact, No Delay In Filing The Appeal Before The Tribunal For The Reason That The Assessee Had Inadvertently Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Ld. Pcit Before The Surat Bench Of The Itat Which, When The Appeal Came Up For Hearing Before It, Passed A Judicial Order Dated 21.11.2023 Dismissing The Appeal As Withdrawn, Noting The Fact That The Correct Jurisdiction Lay With The 2 Shri Kirankumar Rasiklal Sanghvi Vs. Pcit Ay : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Manish J. Shah &For Respondent: Shri Durga Dutt, CIT-DR
Section 14Section 143(3)Section 23Section 263Section 54F

order as under:- Sale consideration received as per sale Rs.6,71,05,250/- deed Indexed cost of acquisition Rs.55,815/- Indexed cost of improvement Rs.91,79,037/- Total Rs.97,35,852 Rs.97,35,852/- Long term capital gain before deductions claimed Rs.5,73,71,398/- Less: Deduction claimed ... acquisition in respect Rs.90,85,933/- of 20% share held by Ritaben J. Shah but purchased by the assessee in A.Y.2010-11 Indexed cost of improvement Rs.95,93,113/- Rs.95.93.113/- Long term capital gain before deductions claimed Rs.5,74,66,137/- Less: Deduction allowable

Polly Saha, Kolkata vs. ITO Ward 45(3), Kolkata

ITA 1097/KOL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Sept 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Taraknath Jaiswal, AdvFor Respondent: Madhumita Das, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 50C

considered by the Ld. AO. Considering the indexed cost of acquisition and cost of improvement, it would have still resulted in a long-term capital loss. Thus, no income had escaped assessment in this case. 3.3. Despite the assessee’s submission regarding the incorrect stamp duty value

Geeta Bai, Bhopal vs. ITO 4(4), Bhopal

In the result appeals of the assessee for Assessment Year

ITA 305/IND/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore23 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 54F

evidence merely on the basis of surmises and conjectures. 6. That in the facts and circumstances of the case no cost of acquisition, cost of improvement and expenses relating to transfer of land has been considered which is bad in law and erroneous. 7. That in the facts and circumstances ... evidence merely on the basis of surmises and conjectures. 6. That in the facts and circumstances of the case no cost of acquisition, cost of improvement and expenses relating to transfer of land has been considered which is bad in law and erroneous. 7. That in the facts and circumstances

Geeta Bai, Berasia vs. ITO 4(4), Bhopal

In the result appeals of the assessee for Assessment Year

ITA 304/IND/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore23 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 54F

evidence merely on the basis of surmises and conjectures. 6. That in the facts and circumstances of the case no cost of acquisition, cost of improvement and expenses relating to transfer of land has been considered which is bad in law and erroneous. 7. That in the facts and circumstances ... evidence merely on the basis of surmises and conjectures. 6. That in the facts and circumstances of the case no cost of acquisition, cost of improvement and expenses relating to transfer of land has been considered which is bad in law and erroneous. 7. That in the facts and circumstances

Geeta Bai, Berasia vs. ITO 4(4) Bhopal, Bhopal

In the result appeals of the assessee for Assessment Year

ITA 303/IND/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore23 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 54F

evidence merely on the basis of surmises and conjectures. 6. That in the facts and circumstances of the case no cost of acquisition, cost of improvement and expenses relating to transfer of land has been considered which is bad in law and erroneous. 7. That in the facts and circumstances ... evidence merely on the basis of surmises and conjectures. 6. That in the facts and circumstances of the case no cost of acquisition, cost of improvement and expenses relating to transfer of land has been considered which is bad in law and erroneous. 7. That in the facts and circumstances

Praful Parshuram Vaity, Palghar vs. I. T. O. 1, Palghar

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

ITA 2785/MUM/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Sept 2024AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2013-14 Praful Parshuram Vaity Ito-1, Palghar, Mumbai Rawale, Mahim, Palghar, Thane- Vs 401402, Mumbai Pan: Agtpv 6370 K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ashish A. ThakurdesaiFor Respondent: Shri Raj Singh Meel, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 234BSection 250(6)Section 50CSection 54BSection 69Section 69A

learned CIT-A, National Faceless Appeal Centre ought to have allowed expenditure in Connection with transfer, cost of acquisition and cost of improvement as deduction in computing capital gain. 6. On facts, in circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT-A, National Faceless Appeal Centre ought

Sushila Bhaurao Deshmukh, Amravati vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 76/NAG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur20 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durgarao & Shrik.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: ShriK.P. DewaniFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Salunke
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 54BSection 54E

Thus exemption claimed under section 54ECof the Act is said to be not allowable to the assessee. Further, Assessing Officer has accepted the cost of improvement of the property (being on a considerable higher side) as claimed by the assessee at `1,12,00,000, without referring the matter ... Agricultural Land. As per provision of section 54B of I.T. Act, 1961, exemption is correctly claimed and allowed by the assessing officer. Cost of improvement as claimed as per list is correctly allowed as all the payment are made by account payee cheques and all these transaction are reflected

Mr Colathur N. Ram, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 34(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes in terms of what we have observed hereinabove

ITA 1464/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI BR BASKARAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 54

Assessment year [A.Y.] 2013-14, wherein learned CIT(A) has dismissed assessee’s appeal and confirmed the disallowance on account of cost of improvement and brokerage, further confirming the addition on account of capital gain and income from house property made vide assessment order dated 31.03.2016. 2. (i) The brief ... Bangalore. The property at Chennai was sold for a net consideration of Rs. 1.55Cr vide agreement dated 27.09.2012 and assessee claimed cost of improvement of Rs. 25,00,000/- and brokerage of Rs. 3,48,316/-. However, Mr. Colathur N. Ram learned assessing officer disallowed the deductions for want

Uppada Kesavajanardhana Rao, Florida, Usa vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, International Taxation, Visakhapatnam

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

ITA 40/VIZ/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam12 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 40/Viz/2024 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2016-17) Uppada Kesavajanardhana Rao V. Asst. Cit 7266, Chelsea Harbor Dr International Taxation Orlando, Florida, Usa – 32829 Income Tax Office, Infinity Towers Sankaramatam Road Usa - 322829 Visakhapatnam - 530016 [Pan :Aiipk6712H] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) करदधतध कध प्रनतनिनर्त्व / Assessee Represented By : Mrs. Hema Latha K., Ar रधजस्व कध प्रनतनिनर्त्व / Department Represented By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr.Ar

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144CSection 147Section 148

Capital gain accordingly. The claim of the appellant is therefore allowed to that extent. Further, as the appellant has withdrawn claim of cost of improvement for his inability to produce supporting documents, the addition made by the AO on account of disallowance of cost of improvement is hereby confirmed. Therefore

Shakuntala Devi, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-4(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 654/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Sept 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Accounant Member Assessment Year: 2020-21 Ms. Shakuntala Devi, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 4(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aeepd0217J. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri A.V. Raghuram, Advocate. Revenue By: Shri D. Praveen, Sr. Ar. Date Of Hearing: 09.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.09.2024

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Raghuram, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D. Praveen, Sr. AR
Section 143(3)Section 282Section 54F

erred in sustaining the addition made by the AO of Rs.3,50,00,000/- by denying the claim of cost of indexed cost of improvement. 4. The Id. CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition made by the AO of Rs.3,50,00,000/- by denying the exemption claimed u/s.54F

Unnam Madhuri, Ananthapur vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Kurnool

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

ITA 649/HYD/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Sept 2024AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Accounant Member Assessment Year: 2022-23 Ms. Unnam Madhuri, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Ananthapur. Circle – 1, Kurnool. Pan : Albpm5187A. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri A.V. Raghuram, Advocate. Revenue By: Shri D. Praveen, Sr. Ar. Date Of Hearing: 09.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.09.2024

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Raghuram, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D. Praveen, Sr. AR
Section 143(3)Section 282

erred in sustaining the addition made by the AO of Rs.3,99,67,883 by disallowing the claim of cost of improvement. 4. The Id. CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition made by the AO of Rs.21,37,200 by estimating the same at 25% of purchase amount claimed

Sri Nirmalendu Nag, Purba Midnapore vs. ITO WD. 27(2), Haldia

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 115/KOL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: the Ld Valuation Officer U/S 50C(2) of the IT Act, 961. 4 For that the Ld. CIT(A)NFAC failed to consider the order of Ld, CIT(A)NFAC in the matter of appellant's wife, Smt. Purnima Nag, who was the joint owner (50% share) of the said immoveable property sold to same purchaser jointly at a sale consideration of Rs.14,90,000/-

Section 144Section 147Section 250Section 50C(2)

order of Ld AO 2 For that the Ld CIT(A) NFAC failed consider and deduct Index Cost of Acquisition and Index Cost of Improvement from the value of the sale consideration(50%) of immoveable property(Land & Building) 3. For that the Ld A O erred in law by invoking ... recompute the taxable long term capital gain after allowing deduction on account of Index cost of acquisition and Index Cost of Improvement from 50% of full value of consideration as determined by the Stamp valuation authority at Rs. 32,84,958/- 5. For that the Ld CIT(A) erred

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Visakhapatnam vs. Y.Lourdu Reddy, Hyderabad

In the result, cross objections raised by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 328/VIZ/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam09 Sept 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153C

which was under construction and hence he has incurred an expenditure of Rs.42,28,500/- to complete the building. He therefore pleaded that cost of improvement may be allowed. 13. We have heard both the sides and perused the material available on record. On perusal of the Sale Deed ... mentioned as “Under Construction” for determination of Age of building. Further, assessee has not produced any documentary evidences for the cost of improvement incurred by the assessee which was also observed by the Ld. CIT(A) in Paragraph No. “(e)" at Page No.12 of the order which is extracted below

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Visakhapatnam vs. Y.Joji Reddy, Hyderabad

In the result, cross objections raised by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 327/VIZ/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam09 Sept 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153C

which was under construction and hence he has incurred an expenditure of Rs.42,28,500/- to complete the building. He therefore pleaded that cost of improvement may be allowed. 13. We have heard both the sides and perused the material available on record. On perusal of the Sale Deed ... mentioned as “Under Construction” for determination of Age of building. Further, assessee has not produced any documentary evidences for the cost of improvement incurred by the assessee which was also observed by the Ld. CIT(A) in Paragraph No. “(e)" at Page No.12 of the order which is extracted below

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Visakhapatnam vs. Y.Joji Reddy, Hyderabad

In the result, cross objections raised by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 326/VIZ/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam09 Sept 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153C

which was under construction and hence he has incurred an expenditure of Rs.42,28,500/- to complete the building. He therefore pleaded that cost of improvement may be allowed. 13. We have heard both the sides and perused the material available on record. On perusal of the Sale Deed ... mentioned as “Under Construction” for determination of Age of building. Further, assessee has not produced any documentary evidences for the cost of improvement incurred by the assessee which was also observed by the Ld. CIT(A) in Paragraph No. “(e)" at Page No.12 of the order which is extracted below

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Visakhapatnam vs. Y.Joji Reddy, Hyderabad

In the result, cross objections raised by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 325/VIZ/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam09 Sept 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153C

which was under construction and hence he has incurred an expenditure of Rs.42,28,500/- to complete the building. He therefore pleaded that cost of improvement may be allowed. 13. We have heard both the sides and perused the material available on record. On perusal of the Sale Deed ... mentioned as “Under Construction” for determination of Age of building. Further, assessee has not produced any documentary evidences for the cost of improvement incurred by the assessee which was also observed by the Ld. CIT(A) in Paragraph No. “(e)" at Page No.12 of the order which is extracted below

Archana Baid, Silchar, Assam vs. I.T.O., Ward - 34(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1135/KOL/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Sept 2024AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Manish Pugalia, AdvocateFor Respondent: Pradip Biswas, Addl. CIT
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 50C

stamp duty while the assessee had claimed the same at Rs. 5,16,000/- in her return of income alongwith the claim for cost of improvement of Rs. 8,50,000/- and short- term capital gains was worked out after declaring full value of consideration ... acquisition of the property on the basis of the available document at Rs.5,00,000/- and did not allow the benefit of cost of improvement of Rs.8,50,000/- claimed by the assessee in the return. Accordingly, the difference between the value for the purpose of stamp duty

Mahendra Singh Chawla, Indore vs. DCIT Circle-1(1), Indore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 245/IND/2024[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Indore04 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanimahendra Singh Chawla Dcit Circle -1(1) 4/35 Gram Pigdamber A.B. Indore Road Near Rao Vs. Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aazpc0120C Assessee By None Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Revenue By Date Of Hearing 02.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 04 .09.2024

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 54

Ground. 2. That Ld. CIT(A) has erred in treating the Indexed cost of purchase of property of Rs. 781853 and indexed cost of improvement of property at Rs. 204707 total Rs. 986560 as cost of improvement and accordingly allowed the ground of the appellant considering the total as improvement ... being the indexed cost of house purchased by him in the F.Y. 1994-95 along with the cost of improvement made by him in the F.Y. 2009-10. The Ld. A.O. in Para 4.1 of the assessment order has mentioned that during assessment proceedings the appellant was required to submit

Sarangabani Kirubagaran, Chennai vs. DCIT, Circle-1(2), Chennai

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1236/CHNY/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1236/Chny/2023 (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Shri Sarangabani Kirubakaran Dcit बनाम/ 17/6, First Pillayar Koil Street, Circle-1(2) Vs. Ekkatuthangal, Chennai-600 032. Chennai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Bumpk-0892-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Ms.T.V. Muthu Abirami (Advocate)-Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som (Cit) -Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25-07-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 04-09-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2013-14 Arises Out Of The Common Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-18, Chennai, [Cit(A)] Dated 13-09-2023 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By The Ld. Ao U/S.153C R.W.S. 153A R.W.S. 143(3) Of The Act On 31-03-2022. The Only Grievance Of The Assessee Is Confirmation Of Addition U/S 69 For Rs.30 Lacs & Assessment Of Short- Term Capital Gain (Stcg) For Rs.12.19 Lacs. 2. The Ld Ar Advanced Arguments & Submitted That Impugned Addition Of Rs.30 Lacs U/S 69 Represent Advance Received Through

For Appellant: Ms.T.V. Muthu Abirami (Advocate)-Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT) -Ld. DR
Section 132Section 133ASection 153CSection 271(1)(c)Section 69Section 69ASection 69BSection 69C

Sec.69 since this section is applicable for unexplained investments only. On the issue of assessment of STCG, Ld. AR submitted that the cost of improvement stood proved by documentary evidences and the same could not be disallowed. The Ld. CIT-DR, on the other hand, filed written submissions and submitted ... STCG are that the assessee sold plots and computed Short-Term Capital Loss (STCL) of Rs.6.20 Lacs. While computing, the assessee claimed cost of improvement for Rs.18.40 Lacs. In support, the assessee furnished a bill dated 24.03.2011 from Lakshmi Construction, Chennai for a sum of Rs.18.50 Lacs which

Kaushliya, Noida vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1, Noida

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assessment years

ITA 2266/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2264/Del/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 बनाम Smt. Kaushliya, Dcit B-15, Sector-12, Gautam Budha Nagar, Vs. Central Circle-1, 2Nd Floor, Noida, Uttar Pradesh-201301 Pan No.Anxpk9426G Arto Complex, Sector-33, Noida, Uttar Pradesh. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 69A

these three appeals the assessee challenged the order of the Ld.CIT(Appeals) in partly sustaining the action of the AO in denying the cost of improvement of the property purchased by the assessee and in making addition u/s 69A of the Act. Assessee also filed additional grounds of appeal challenging