“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

Vivek Bali, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle Int. Taxation 1(1)(2), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1416/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jun 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Ms. Shivangi Kumar, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 54Section 69A

Consideration Cost of acquisition as on 2,50,26,000 2,37,87,805 01/04/2001 Cost of Improvement 2,75,800 Nil (F.Y 2003-04) Index Cost of Acquisition 7,07,81,277 6,66,05,854 (70072800+708477) (2,50,26,000*280/100

Rishi Goyal, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 1690/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

para 7 of Rishi Goyel vs. DCIT the order. From the above submissions, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee has claimed Cost of improvement expenses of Rs.61,12,345/-, payment of brokerage of Rs.82,500/- at the time of sale, Pre-closure charges of Rs.1,09,242/- and payment ... DCIT Cir 46(1) and the CIT(A)-21 erred in disallowing the claim of assessee as to the cost of improvement evidenced by the bill of the contractor without verifying the same. Neither of them even endeavored to enquire from the counsel of the assessee about the mode

Pankaj Gupta, Chandigarh vs. DCIT, Circle 1, Chandigarh

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

ITA 484/CHANDI/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: The Appeal Is Finally Heard Or Disposed Off. 4. That The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax Is Erroneous, Arbitrary, Opposed To Law & Facts Of The Case & Is, Thus, Untenable.” 3. Briefly The Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income On 03/08/2018 Which Was Selected For Scrutiny & During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, The Assessee Was Asked To Provide Details Of The Asset Sold Along With Supporting Documentation Substantiating The Claim For Long Term Capital Gain (Ltcg).

For Appellant: Shri Tejmohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shr Dharam Vir, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)

case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in upholding the addition on account of not allowing indexed cost of improvement against the capital asset sold by the appellant. 2. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has failed to comment on the additional ... response, the assessee submitted that he has sold land at Village Gulabgarh and particulars regarding the sale consideration, purchase consideration and cost of improvement were submitted. The AO on perusal of the cost of improvement vis-à-vis the cost of land stated that the assessee has claimed excessive high

Income Tax Officer, Pune vs. Prakash Ramkrishna Pophale, Pune

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

ITA 283/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Prasad BhandariFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak, Addl.CIT

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 54Section 54(1)

Rs.2,26,33,135/-. 7. In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC deleted both the additions. So far as the denial of cost of improvement of Rs.11,42,700/- is concerned, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC deleted the same by observing as under: “6.2. I have considered the facts ... case and documents furnished by the appellant, I am inclined to agree with the appellant's claim. In the instant case, controversy regarding cost of improvement arose because in the books of M/s. Vision Buildon, the total payment Rs.19,00,000/- was reflected in appellant's name and Rs.20

Idrish, Matawas vs. ITO, Ward-Bhiwadi, Income Tax

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

ITA 818/JPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Sharma (Adv.) (Th.V.C.)For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra(Addl.CIT)

Section 147Section 2(14)Section 234A

addition made by the AO in respect of capital gain on sale of land without granting any benefit of the cost of acquisition/ cost of improvement of land. The addition so made without giving benefit of COA and COI by the Id. AO and confirmed

Soniya David Lathika, Thiruvananthapuram vs. ITO Ward 2(3), Trivandrum, Thiruvananthapuram

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

ITA 667/COCH/2022[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin07 Jun 2024AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Soniya David Lathika The Ito, Ward-2(3) S. S. Nivas, Vizhinjam, Aayakar Bhavan, Kowdiar, Vs. Mukkola, Venganoor, Trivandrum-4 Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala Pan/Gir No. Ajqpl 8228 A (Assessee) : (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Adarsh BFor Respondent: 13.03.2024

Section 10(37)Section 250

cost of acquisition to the appellant therefore should 3 Soniya David Lathika vs. ITO be Rs.14,000 plus connected expenses and also cost of improvement Rs.1,00,000 which were actually incurred by the parents. 10. The Assessing Officer accepted as correct bank interest received Rs.340,903 certified by State

Nilesh Raghavji Salva, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward 23(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is disposed off and partly

ITA 819/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri. Om Prakash Kant & Shri. Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 274

assessee has sold two flats for a consideration of Rs. 1,61,90,000/- each. After claiming indexed cost of improvement at Rs. 1,57,48,709/- and Rs. 1,22,85,877/- incurred in various financial years, long-term capital loss of Rs. 53,80,635/- has been shown ... during the year under consideration (i.e. Rs.99, 93,185/- for each flat) without giving the benefit of indexation on cost of acquisition and cost of improvement without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case. Thus, the addition of Rs.1, 99, 86,370/- made on account of Long Term Capital

Mohammed Sabir Babubhai Shaikh, Ahmedabad vs. ITO Ward 6(1), Jaipur

ITA 687/JPR/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Jun 2024AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Rohan SoganiFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Chaudhary, Addl. CIT (V. C)

Section 147Section 148

/NFAC has erred in confirming the action of the Id. AO in not allowing the benefit of cost of acquisition, incidental expenses and cost of improvement to the assessee. The action of the Id. CIT(A) /NFAC is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against the facts of the case. Relief ... previous year 2000-01 for total consideration of Rs. 6,90,000. Subsequent to the purchase of the property, assessee had incurred “cost of improvement” amounting to Rs. 7,09,305 on the property. III. Accordingly, there was no capital gain on sale of the property, considering the Indexed Cost

Snehasish Bhaumik, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir. 50(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1429/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 1429/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Snehasish Bhaumik Asstt. Commissioner Of Income A-3/2, Labony Estate Vs Tax, Circle – 50(1), Kolkata Salt Lake, Bidhannagar North Kolkata - 700064 [Pan : Adypb8516H] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Advocate Revenue By : Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, Jcit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 07/03/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 04/06/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 31/10/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Sole Issue Raised In This Appeal Is About The Correctness Of The Amount Of Capital Gain Arising From Sale Of Flat Owned By The Assessee. 3. Facts In Brief Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Filed Its Return Of Income For Assessment Year 2014-15 On 30/09/2014 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.10,40,570/- & The Same Included Income From Capital Gain At Rs.4,12,278/-. Thereafter, The Assessment Was Completed U/S 143(3) Of The Act On 26/10/2016 & The Assessment Records Were The Subject Matter Before The Ld. Pr. Cit In The Proceedings U/S 263 Of The Act & After Culmination Of The Revisionary Proceedings, Directions Were Given To The Ld. Assessing Officer By The Ld. Pr. Cit To Pass A Fresh

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, JCIT, Sr. D/R

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263

Less: (-) 34,57,744 Indexed cost of acquisition (purchase date 15/09/2009) 23,27,257 X 939/632 Less: (-) 1,88,857 Cost of Improvement 1,43,000 X 939/711 Long Term Capital Gain 18,59,659/- 8. Thus, to conclude, we hold that the assessee has earned long term capital gain

Vipul Kumar Modi, Jaipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur -I

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 310/JPR/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Jun 2024AY 2016-2017

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sidharth Ranka &For Respondent: Shri Anil Dhaka (CIT) a

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 263

Form No.3CEA as per section 20B(3) of the Act read with Rule 6H of the IT Rules, 1962. 6. Documentary evidence of cost of improvement with supporting Documentary evidence 7. Detailed note on reasoris for incurring losses in sale of undertakings. 8. Stepwise details of calculation of net worth

Mogalapalli Mahalakshmi, Visakhapatnam vs. Incomw Tax Officer (Ward International Taxation), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 15/VIZ/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam31 May 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.15/Viz/2024 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2015-16) Mogalapalli Mahalakshmi Vs. Income Tax Officer Flat No.404, Sitara Enclave Ward (International Opp.Amg Hospital Taxation) Seethammadhara Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan :Augpm0457M] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr.Aparna Villuri, DR

Section 144Section 148

pressed. 7. With regard to Ground No.4, it was the submission of the Ld.AR that the AO made disallowance of indexed cost of improvement of Rs.14,21,650/- with supporting documents, such as source of funds, mode of payment and bank statement etc. It was further submitted that to substantiate ... assessee, saying that the assessee has not produced any supporting bills, vouchers, source of funds, in respect of the claim of indexed cost of improvement. The assessee has filed Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) dated 4 I.T.A. No.15/Viz/2024, A.Y.2015-16 Mogalapalli Mahalakshmi, Visakhapatnam 10.03.2006, which was executed by the assessee and civil

Dilip Kapur, United States of America vs. ACIT, Circle 2(1)(2) International Taxation, New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2059/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumarshri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, Adv. and Shri Aman Garg, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vijay B Vasanta, CIT- DR

Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 144CSection 234D

case, the learned AO has erred both on facts and in law in making disallowance of Rs. 22,61,728/- on account of cost of improvement claimed by the assessee while computing the income under the head long term capital gain. 7. On the facts and circumstances of the case ... long term capital gain of Rs 4,28,60,146/- after claiming indexed cost of acquisition of Rs 6,52,96,660 indexed cost of improvement of Rs. 65.36.394/- and cost of transfer & other misc. expenses of Rs. 3,06,800/- 3. The issues involved are:-  Disallowance of Indexed cost

ACIT Circle-36(1), New Delhi vs. Himanshu Garg, New Delhi

ITA 819/DEL/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Niraj Jain, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Vivek K. Upadhyay, Sr. DR

Section 54BSection 54F

Whether on the facts in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred by allowing full cost of improvement of land against the sale transaction for portion of the land which was allowed by the AO proportionately. 4. Whether on the facts ... circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred by allowing full cost of improvement of land alongwith indexation in the case of land sold at Pataudi vide deed No.987 despite the fact that the assessee has failed to substantiate the claim of cost of improvement

Vidyavathi Manthravadi, United Kingdom vs. Commissioner of Income Tax(It and Tp), Hyderabad

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

ITA 295/VIZ/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.292/Viz/2023 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year :2013-14) Sivakama Sundar Manthravadi, Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax United Kingdom. (It & Tp), Pan: Avspm 1372 N Hyderabad. (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.295/Viz/2023 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year : 2013-14) Vidyavathi Manthravadi, Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax United Kingdom. (It & Tp), Pan: Avspm 1370 Q Hyderabad. (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधर्थीकीओरसे/ Assessees By : Ms. P. Chandini, Ar प्रत्यधर्थीकीओरसे/ Revenue By : Dr. Satyasai Rath, Cit-Dr सुिवधईकीतधरीख/ Date Of Hearing : 27/03/2024 घोर्णधकीतधरीख/Date Of : 28/05/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R Per S. Balakrishnan:

For Respondent: Dr. Satyasai Rath, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 54Section 54E

disclosing the capital gains of NIL on the sale of flat after claiming the cost of indexation and cost of improvement. The Ld. AO partly disallowing the cost of indexation and cost of improvement and after considering the investment U/s. 54EC of the Act, computed the taxable income under capital ... gain is long term or short term and the indexed cost of acquisition could be computed. Likewise in order to claim the indexed cost of improvement necessary documents in support of the improvements done and the expenditure incurred thereon have to be also maintained by the assessee. The next question

Sivakama Sundar Manthravadi, United Kingdom vs. Commissioner of Income Tax(It and Tp), Hyderabad

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

ITA 292/VIZ/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 May 2024AY 2013-14

For Respondent: Dr. Satyasai Rath, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 54Section 54E

Sini Noushad, Thrissur vs. The ITO, Ward 1(3), Thrissur

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

ITA 252/COCH/2023[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Cochin28 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal & Sa No. 144/Coch/2023 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Sini Noushad The Income Tax Officer Poovathumkiadavil House Ward - 1(3), Thrissur Kara Post, Peethamaballur Vs. Kathiyalam, Thrissur 608671 [Pan: Emrps6227J] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Padmanathan K.V., AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144A

deduction for which stood allowed by the AO in computing the LTCG, was furnished either before him or before the assessing authority toward cost of improvement being claimed. Aggrieved, the assessee is in second appeal before us. 3. We have heard the parties, and perused the material on record ... through her learned counsel, was for a set aside of the assessment, restoring it back to the AO for factoring in the cost of improvement inasmuch as the assessee had built a super superstructure on the said land during f.y. 2014-15 at a cost of Rs. 38 lakhs

Late Shri Balkrishan Joshi (Through Legal Heir Shri Bhoopendra Joshi), Indore vs. The Income Tax Officer-5(1), Indore

Appeal is allowed partly

ITA 402/IND/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 May 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2008-09 Late Shri Balkrishan Joshi Income-Tax Officer, (Through L/H Shri 5(1), Bhoopendra Joshi), Indore बनाम/ 541, Alok Nagar, Vs. Kanadia Road, Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Abjpj 0180 C Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal & Shri Bavesh Agrawal, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 21.05.2024

Section 143(3)Section 253(5)

circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the Ld. AO in restricting the cost of improvement of house at Rs. 2,53,600/- as against cost of improvement claimed by the appellant of Rs. 15,24,870/-. Ground ... this ground, the assessee claims that the CIT(A) has erred in confirming action of AO in restricting the cost of improvement at Rs. 2,53,600/- (correct amount should be Rs. 2,53,650/-) as against the cost of improvement claimed by assessee

Revathi Samuel, Salem vs. The Income Tax Officer, International Taxation-2(1), Chennai

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

ITA 1285/CHNY/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 May 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1285/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21) Revathi Samuel, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 10A, Ramakrishna Road, International Taxation 2(1) Sreerangapalayam, Chennai. Salem 636 007. [Pan: Acxps 8637C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri. G. Baskar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri. Arv Srinivasan, Addl. Cit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 14.05.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.05.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri ()

For Appellant: Shri. G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. ARV Srinivasan, Addl. CIT

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 153(3)Section 250Section 55A

note the unreasonably expectation of the AO to produce records relating back to 2 decades which is wholly illogical and improbable. 4. Cost of Improvement of building Incurred 4.1. The CIT(A)'s non-granting of cost improvement to the property on the grounds of absurdity is without appreciating ... fact that the cost of Improvement constituted mere 1% to 3% of the sale consideration and is very much reasonable. 4.2. The CIT(A) falled to note the unreasonable expectation of the AO to produce records relating back to 2 decades which is wholly illogical and improbable

Arun Kumar Jain, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle - 61(1), New Delhi

ITA 355/DEL/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2016-17 Arun Kumar Jain, Vs Acit, B-1, Green Park Extn., Circle-61(1), New Delhi – 110 016. New Delhi. Pan: Aafpj7509J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Mrs. Prem Lata Bansal, Sr. Adv., Shri Shivang Bansal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Kanav Bali, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 21.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.05.2024

For Appellant: Mrs. Prem Lata Bansal, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Kanav Bali, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 54

assessee. 3 4. Further, the AO has also accepted the cost of acquisition calculated by the assessee but only 50% of the cost of improvement incurred by the assessee was allowed. 4.1 The AO also allowed deduction u/s 54 of the Act, in respect of ground floor only, stating that ... floors acquired after the new construction were being rented. 4.2 The CIT(A) has confirmed the order of the AO in respect of cost of improvement at 50% only. 4.3 The CIT(A) accepted the claim of the assessee that the assessee is entitled to deduction

Muniswamy Venkataswamy, Bangalore vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-3(3)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 678/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Padmanabhan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, D.R

Section 144Section 147Section 250Section 272(1)(d)

entire amount as Short Term Capital Gains without any application of mind. 7) The Learned Assessing Officer did not give deduction to cost of improvement and other structural activities. 8) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO has erred in initiating