← 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

Ashit Gordhanbhai Patel, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Assessment Center, NFAC

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

ITA 3095/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Girish Agrawalashit Gordhanbhai Vs. Natinal Faceless Assessment Centere, Patel, New Delhi. 44 Vithal Nagar, Ns Road, No. 11, Jvpd Scheme. Mumbai-400049. Pan/Gir No. Aaepp6530C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Appellant By None Respondent By Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 05.08.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 06.08.2024 Order Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: “ The Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre(Nfac), Delhi / Cit(A), Mumbai Passed U/Sec 143(3) & U/Sec 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

Section 2

flats. 2 Ashit Gordhanbhai Patel, Mumbai (ii) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the AO in restricting the Indexed cost of improvement to Rs. 6,70,089/- as against a sum of Rs.80,41,031/-claimed in the return of income in respect of each ... without appreciating the fact that the loan processing fee and foreclosure charges of Rs.3,21,638/- of each of the flats also constituted cost of improvement and that the appellant had submitted the details of the expenditure of Rs.38,87,968/- incurred on the improvements for each

Sandhya Suresh Dahivelkar, Pune vs. ITO, Ward 14(3), Pune

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

ITA 341/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.341/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sandhya Suresh Dahivelkar, Vs. Ito, Ward-14(3), Pune. Flat No.6/624, Clover Citadel Wanowrie, Pune- 411040. Pan : Asypd2124N Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Dattatraya Suresh Kusumkar : Revenue By : Shri Sourabh Nayak Date Of Hearing : 27.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.07.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28.02.2023 Passed By Ld Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Present Appeal Is Filed Belatedly I.E. With The Delay Of 297 Days. The Appellant Furnished An Application/ Affidavit Praying For Condonation Of Delay In The Circumstances Mentioned Therein. We Are Of The Considered Opinion That The Reasons Mentioned By The Assessee Constitute Reasonable Cause For Not Filing The Appeal Within

For Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak
Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 54Section 55A

power under section 55A or section 142A of Income Tax Act. 2. Apart from Cost of construction of building, there are some cost of improvement towards capital Asset. On the same ground of point No.1, I prey to consider the cost of Improvement incurred as per valuation report by assesse ... military men. The Assessing Officer accepted all the 4 claims but denied the cost of construction of Rs.5,13,670 & also the cost of improvement of Rs.4,82,500/-, which resulted in Long Term Capital Gains of Rs.43,57,789/-. It was submitted before us that

Birinder Singh, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-43(1), Delhi

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

ITA 2256/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jul 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Madhumita Roybirinder Singh, Vs. Dcit, Circle 43 (1), U-174, Dlf Capital Greens, Delhi. Moti Nagar, Delhi – 110 015. (Pan : Aaaps5702P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Tarandeep Singh, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 08.07.2024 Date Of Order : 10.07.2024 Order Per Shamim Yahya: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Dated 18.04.2024 For The Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Taken By The Assessee Read As Under :- “1. That On Facts & In Law The Impugned Order Dated 18Th April 2024 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (Hereinafter Referred To As The "Cit(A)") Is Bad In Law & Void Ab Initio. 2. That On Facts & In Law The Cit(A) Has Erred In:

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 48

opportunity of being heard in person. 4. That on facts and in law the CIT(A) has erred in upholding a disallowance of cost of improvement of Rs.5,00,000/- (having indexed value of Rs.13,76,190/- claimed as deduction u/s 48(ii) of the Act by the appellant ... that Assessing Officer in this case made addition of Rs.13,76,190/- being variation in respect of issue of disallowance of index cost of improvement in respect of Phase-1. 4. Upon assessee’s appeal, ld. CIT (A) confirmed the same. 5. Against this order, assessee has filed appeal before