“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

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

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

ITA 2265/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

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

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

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

ITA 2264/DEL/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 69A

Sushant Kumar Chatterjee, Kolar Road vs. ITO- 1-(3), Bhopal

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

ITA 251/IND/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishri Sushant Kumar Chatterjee, Ito-1(3), House No.34 Eden Garden, Bhopal Chunnabhati, Vs. Kolar Road, Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Acrpc0043Q Assessee By Shri Gagan Tiwari, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 29.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 30.08.2024 O R D E R

Section 50C

facts and circumstances of the case the learned lower authorities erred and were not justified in disallowing claim on account of cost of improvement at Rs. 23,88,329/-. 7. That on the facts and circumstances of the case the learned lower authorities erred and were not justified in making

Sh. Vinod Kumar Gupta, Alwar vs. PCIT(Central), Jaipur

In the result, both appeals of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 661/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: moving towards the facts of the case we would like to mention that the assessee has assailed the appeal in ITA No.644/JP/2024 on the following grounds; "1. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, order passed by the Ld. PCIT u/s 263 is illegal & bad in law and the same be quashed. 2. The Ld. PCIT has erred on facts and in law in holding that the

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 115BSection 127Section 133ASection 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 Honourable Apex Court upheld the action of the Commissioner of Income

Sh. Rajeev Jain, Alwar vs. PCIT(Central), Jaipur

In the result, both appeals of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 644/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 115BSection 127Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

Venkataraju Chandrashekar, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1)(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 1351/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, A.RFor Respondent: Sri V. Parithivel, D.R

Section 144Section 147Section 54Section 69

appellant's case. 3.3 The learned CIT [A] ought to have allowed the appellant the benefit of indexed cost of acquisition, indexed cost of improvement and deduction u/s 54/54F of the Act that was available to the appellant under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case

ACIT, Circle-4(2), New Delhi vs. Boranda International Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 2019/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Sushil Chadha, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. DR

Section 271(1)(c)Section 37(1)

allotment letter although the payment for acquisition of land is made in F.Y. 2015- 16 only and there is no bill available for cost of improvement. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case. the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in allowing disallowance of expenses ... issues have emerged which require our adjudication. One pertains to determination of cost of land on proportionate basis and the other pertains to cost of improvement of land. The AO has calculated the proportionate cost of acquisition for the parcel of land admeasuring 9900 sqmts. We find that the assessee

Atul Talwar Ar of Kailash Talwar, Delhi vs. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Center

Appeal are dismissed herewith for non-prosecution

ITA 1203/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2016-17

Section 54Section 69A

valuation of property had been taken at Rs. 1,32,79,669/-. Cost of acquisition with indexation was shown at Rs. 31.58.529/-; and cost of improvement was taken at Rs. 29,62,883/-. Total long term capital gain was calculated at Rs. 71,58.257/- and exemption u/s 54 was claimed

Smt. Gyan Devi, Alwar vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Alwar

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

ITA 144/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Anoop Singh (Addl. CIT) a

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151(1)Section 50CSection 54Section 56(2)(vii)

assessee has sold immovable property for Rs. 54,93,600/- but failed to furnish the documentary evidence in respect of cost of acquisition, cost of improvement or any kind of investment/expenses for deduction u/s 54/54B/54EC/54F/54GB. Therefore, it is fair and reasonable to assessee Long Term Capital Gain of the assessee ... held that assessee sold the immovable property for Rs.54,93,600/- but failed to furnish documentary evidences in respect of cost of acquisition, cost of improvement or for deduction u/s 54 of the Act and thus assessed the long term capital gain at Rs 54,93,600/- vide order dt.29.09.2021

Vaibhav Uppal, Janak Puri vs. ITO, Civic Centre

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

ITA 1100/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2013-14

Section 147Section 148Section 48

assessment at Rs. 29,13,915/- by adding Rs. 27,23,165/- by disallowing deduction claimed u/s 48 of the Act for cost of improvement. Aggrieved against it the assessee preferred appeal before the learned CIT(Appeals), who also dismissed the appeal and affirmed the action of learned AO. Aggrieved

Pankaj Surech Rach, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Int Tax Ward 4(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2290/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Ms. Kinjal Bhuta, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Anil Sant, Addl. CIT D/R

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 151Section 50C

principles of natural justice and ought to be quashed. I.T.A. No. 2290/Mum/2024 2 3. The Ld. Assessing Officer erred in not allowing cost of improvement on sale of properties and computing the capital gains from the flats at Rs.1,08,76,618/- instead of Rs.8,69,539/- as declared

Shabbir Ahmed Ahmed Ali, Nagpur vs. National E Assesment Centry, Delhi

ITA 112/NAG/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur14 Aug 2024AY 2018-2019

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 50CSection 54

appeal, the assessee has raised following grounds:– “Ground No.1 That the Lower Authorities erred in Law and Fact in not considering the cost of Improvement to the property under consideration at Rs.23,26,486/- as per year wise details furnished in the computation of Income and adopted index cost ... being bills vouchers etc were furnished during the course of Assessment Shabbir Ahmed Ahmed Ali ITA no.112/Nag./2023 proceedings. The claim of index cost of improvement as per computation of income at Rs.23,26,486/-be kindly considered and Indexed cost of property as per computation be kindly accepted. That

Suppanagounder Karuppanasamy, Coimbatore vs. ACIT Non Corporate Circle 2, Coimbatore

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 807/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.807/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-2018) Suppana Gounder Karuppanasamy, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of 37, Mariamman Kovil Street, Income Tax, Kalapatti, Non Corporate Circle 2, Coimbatore 641 048. Coimbatore. [Pan: Bwcpk 9001L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri. N.V. Krishnan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Irs, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 12.08.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 14.08.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri ()

For Appellant: Shri. N.V. Krishnan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, IRS, JCIT

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 54BSection 54F

Sale of land sold 800000/x0.89 = 7,12,000 (Value as on 01.04.1981) (a) Indexed cost: (712000 x 1125/100) =80,10,000 (b) Indexed cost of improvement: =12,37,500 (100000 X 1125/100) (c ) Brokerage = 8,09,090 ----------- 1,0056,590 Gross Capital Gain (26969700-10056590) Deduction ... documents arrived at a reasonable value of Rs.10,000 per acre as cost of acquisition before indexation and another Rs.10,000/- towards the cost of improvement of the property. On the aforesaid basis, the AO computed the LTCG from sale of two lands (45 cents of land + 89 cents

Madhuri Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. Pr. CIT-4, Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1266/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Ms Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2017-18 Madhuri Enterprises Vs. Pcit-4 Private Limited New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi-110085 Pan :..Aaacm8923F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sandeep Goel, Advocate, Kapil Goel, Advocate Department By Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty, Cit, Dr

Section 142Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

show cause notice (scn)(s) issued u/s 263 on totally wrong assumption and presumption vis a vis aspect of inquiry during assessment on cost of improvement is concerned; That in admitted and undisputed facts of the case, impugned iii) revision order passed u/s 263 of 1961 Act by PCIT ... DELHI impugned revision order passed u/s 263 transgresses beyond the scope of SCN issued u/s 263 vis a vis aspect of 2nd cost of improvement (Rs.72.86.67) is concerned as scn issued was limited to aspect of a) cost of acquisition and b) first cost of improvement without any iota

Devi Prasad Ghoshal, Bhopal vs. Income Tax Officer 5(4), Bhopal

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

ITA 273/IND/2024[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Indore09 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanidevi Prasad Ghoshal Ito, Ward 5(4) 3/D- 101, Regal Town, Bhopal Awadhpuri Piplani Vs. Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Acopg5772B Assessee By Shri S.S. Deshpande, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 08.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 09.08.2024

Section 54

without giving further opportunity of hearing is not justified. He has further submitted that the AO has made an addition on account of cost of improvement of old property while computing long term capital gain for want of supporting evidence however, the AO did not issue any show cause notice ... fresh adjudication after verification and examination of the record to be filed by the assesse in supporting of the claim of cost of improvement. 4. We have considered the rival submissions as well as relevant material on record. The assesse in the application for seeking adjournment of hearing explained

Base Realty Private Limited, Lower Parel, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle 3(1)(1), Mumbai, Aayakar Bhawan

In the result, appeal raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1121/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI AMARJIT SINGH (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 48

purpose of computing her income under the head "Capital gains" either as expenditure incurred in connection with the transfer or as cost of improvement or under section 48 itself. The departmental authorities rejected the claim. On further appeal, the Tribunal accepted the assessee's contention that the transfer ... that view of the matter, such expenditure would also form part of the cost of acquisition of the capital asset or the cost of improvement thereto as contemplated under section 48(ii) of the Act. For this and other reasons stated in the order, the Tribunal allowed the assessee

Shreeyans Kumar Godha, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward 6(4), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 698/JPR/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Aug 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Rajeev Sogani, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Anoop Singh (Addl. CIT)

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 43CSection 45(2)Section 49(1)Section 50C

action of not deducting full purchase price of the land according to the provisions of section 49(1) and also not considering the cost of improvement and development of land while determining the taxable income from transactions of sale of land (treating the transaction of sale of a capital asset ... acquisition and improvement Ld. Lower authorities have not allowed the proper cost of acquisition and improvement for computing Long Term Capital Gain. Following cost of improvement has been ignored by Id. AO. Which may please be allowed [PB 90]: 6. / Improvement Cost F.Y. 1991-92 11334/199*632 Improvement Cost

Sri. Aravindan Vedhavaththiyar Singarachari, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5(3)(1), Bangalore

ITA 666/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Shri. V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Anjala Sahu, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(1)Section 50C

Sale consideration as per Section 50C Rs. 99,88,300/- Indexed cost of acquisition Rs. 21,55,658/- Indexed cost of improvement Rs. 83,46,545/- Long Term Capital Loss Rs. 5,13,883/- The copies of sale deeds of eight properties is available on records. The details of sale

Sri. Aravindan Vedhavaththiyar Singarachari, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5(3)(1), Bangalore

ITA 665/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

Section 143(1)Section 50C

Shanana Riyaz Khan, Mumbai vs. ITO-41(3)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 2921/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Shyam AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha, Sr. AR

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 250Section 50C

email address of the assessee. However, despite sufficient opportunity being granted, the assessee failed to furnish any details of cost of acquisition or cost of improvement of the property, if any. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer (“AO”) proceeded to complete the assessment on best judgment basis on the basis of material