“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

Rashmi Ravikiran, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(2)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 195/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Years : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Ravindra Hegde, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S, JCIT (DR)

Section 54F

long term capital gain has claimed the deduction of the following expenses:- Page 2 of 5 SN Particulars Amount (in Rs.) 1. Indexed cost of improvement 82,84,000/- 2. Deduction u/s 54F 1,81,04,677/- 3. The AO during the assessment proceedings required the assessee to justify ... claim for the indexed cost of improvement and deduction u/s 54F of the Act but the assessee failed to comply with the same. Therefore, the AO disallowed the same and added to the total income of the assessee. 4. On appeal before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee failed

Venkatesh Bomma, Hyderabad vs. ITO., (Int Taxn)-1, Hyderabad

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

ITA 62/HYD/2024[A Y 2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 May 2024

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.62/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15) Sri Venkatesh Bomma Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad (International Taxation)-1 Pan:Afhpb6561K Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P Rajeshwara Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Kumar Pranav, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 08/05/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 09/05/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri P Rajeshwara Rao, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Kumar Pranav, CIT(DR)

Section 144(1)Section 147Section 148Section 50C

copy of the sale deed dated 4.12.2023 for transfer of property, copy of sale deed for purchase of property dated 30.03.2007, details of cost of improvement including additional construction Page 2 of 7 ITA No 62 of 2024 Venkatesh Bomma put up in the property and copy of loan sanction ... based on the purchase consideration of Rs.14,50,000/- paid as per deed dated 30.03.2007. However, so far as the indexed cost of improvement of Rs.35,28,035/- is concerned which is based on a document captioned as “work order regarding agreement of Rs.19,50,000/-“ between the vendor

Mithalal Ratanchand Jain, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income (A)-11, Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4316/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Girish Agrawal & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2012-13 Mithalalratanchand Jain Commissioner Of Income Tax 2Nd Floor, Shanti Niwas, (A)-11, Pune New Golden Nest Phase-Xiii, Vs. 100 Ft. Road, Bhayander(East), Mumbai – 401105 (Pan : Aappj1942F) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair,Sr.DR

Section 132Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

under: 3 Mithalal Ratanchand Jain, AY 2012-13 4.1 Assessee had claimed land development expenses paid to Meenaxi Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. towards cost of improvement while computing capital gain. Ld. CIT(A) found that there was no contract with Meenaxi Fabrics and the said company was a defunct company ... which is the impugned year under consideration. It is further submitted that the cost of improvement in A.Y. 2011-12 has been accepted by the Revenue. Before us, assessee has further pointed out that Meenaxi Fabrics Private Limited to whom the y and assessee has paid the land development

M/S. Shilp Gravures Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, CPC, Bangaluru

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

ITA 339/AHD/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 May 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri S.N Divatia with Shri Samir Vora, ARsFor Respondent: Ms Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 154

taxman.com 126. In the said case the assessee sold some immovable property and offered capital in the return without claiming index cost of improvement. The return was selected for scrutiny and addition under section 50C of the Act was made. Subsequently the assessee filed rectification application for allowing the index ... cost of improvement omitted to claim in original return of income and such claim was allowed in case of other co-vendor. The rectification application under section 154 of the Act was rejected by the AO and subsequently by the ld. PCIT by holding that such claim was not made

Vinodkumar Agarwal, Ajmer vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Ajmer

In the result, the four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 257/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 May 2024AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Porwal (C.A.) (V.H.)For Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar (CIT) a

Section 10Section 127Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153Section 153A

have been filed by the appellant but no documentary evidence regarding his claim of cost of acquisition (such as purchase deed etc.) and cost of improvement (such as bills/vouchers/agreements in respect Sh. Vinod Kumar Agarwal vs. DCIT of any civil work executed) have been produced by the appellant. In absence ... That documents related to sale were found during course of search; therefore sufficient incriminating material was found. (b) No cost of acquisition / cost of improvement with indexation in ITR filed u/sec. 139(1) in ITR filed in response to notice u/sec. 153A and nor during the course of assessment proceedings

Vinodkumar Agarwal, Ajmer vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Ajmer

In the result, the four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 256/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 May 2024AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Porwal (C.A.) (V.H.)For Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar (CIT) a

Section 10Section 127Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153Section 153A

Vinodkumar Agarwal, Ajmer vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Ajmer

In the result, the four appeals filed by the assessee are

ITA 254/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 May 2024AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Porwal (C.A.) (V.H.)For Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar (CIT)

Section 10Section 127Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153Section 153A

have been filed by the appellant but no documentary evidence regarding his claim of cost of acquisition (such as purchase deed etc.) and cost of improvement (such as bills/vouchers/agreements in respect 6 ITA No. 254 to 257/JPR/2024 Sh. Vinod Kumar Agarwal vs. DCIT of any civil work executed) have been ... That documents related to sale were found during course of search; therefore sufficient incriminating material was found. (b) No cost of acquisition / cost of improvement with indexation in ITR filed u/sec. 139(1) in ITR filed in response to notice u/sec. 153A and nor during the course of assessment proceedings

Mathaiyan Saravanakumar, Salem vs. ITO, Salem, Salem Tamilnadu

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 243/CHNY/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.243/Chny/2023 (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Shri Mathaiyan Saravanakumar Acit #1/92, Kailash Nagar 4Th Cross बनाम Circle-2(1) Brinvadan Road, Fairlands Salem. / Vs. Salem-636 016. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Avdps-4253-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman (Fca) -Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan (Addl. Cit) - Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10-04-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25-04-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman (FCA) -Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan (Addl. CIT) - Ld. DR

Section 143(3)Section 43CSection 50CSection 56(2)(viib)Section 96

claimed by the appellant. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the first appellate authority is not justified in disallowing the cost of improvement made by the assessee to an extent of Rs.22,84,468/- which has been claimed as a deduction in computing long term capital gains ... arrived at proportionate indexed cost of Rs.65.21 Lacs as against Rs.187.12 Lacs as computed by the assessee. 2.2 The assessee also claimed cost of improvement for Rs.22.84 Lacs on account of filling and leveling of the land in this year. However, upon perusal of Award order dated 27.11.2013 as passed

D.Ramgopal, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(1), Coimbatore

The appeal stand partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 582/CHNY/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Apr 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.582/Chny/2022 (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Shri D. Ramagopal Acit बनाम C/O Mr. G.V. Jhabakh (Fca) Central Circle-1 157, P.M Swamy Colony, Coimbatore. / Vs. 5Th Street, Coimbatore-641 002. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Akgpr-3621-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Jhabakh (Ca)- Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som (Cit)-Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Final Hearing : 18-03-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25-04-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1.1 Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13 Arises Out Of An Order Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-19, Chennai [Cit(A)] On 25.05.2022 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S 143(3) R.W.S 153A Of The Act On 30.03.2016. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Read As Under: -

For Appellant: Shri Jhabakh (CA)- Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT)-Ld. DR

Section 131Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271F

CENTS 19/01/2012 Sale Consideration 645500 Less : Sales Expenses 32275 Net Consideration 613225 Less Indexed Cost of Acquisition 414124.82 160902/305*785 Less Indexed Cost of Improvement 312678/480785 Net Gain / Loss -312258.63 5.4 The claim of expenditure of Rs.32,275/- was denied by Ld. AO for want of evidences. The expense ... deposits accepted from the public. The Ld. AO held that payment of lawyer fees for removing attachment over the property could not constitute cost of improvement of the property. The payments were stated to be part of total payment of Rs.9.24 Lacs made to the Advocate to clear attachment

Shantichand Balchand Borar, Ahmedabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 5(3)(2), Vejalpur

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

ITA 33/AHD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Apr 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kambleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 33/Ahd/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14) Shantichand Balchand The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ Ward 5(3)(2), Vejalpur, Borar Vs. N-101, Orchid Whitefield, Ahmedabad Near Makarba Railway Crossing, Makarba, Gujarat 380051 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aehpb5346P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri Prakash D. Shah & Shri Saiyam अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : V. Shah, A.Rs. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ketan Gajjar, Sr. Dr 01/04/2024 Date Of Hearing 24/04/2024 Date Of Pronouncement O R D E R The Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 21.08.2023 Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, For Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Filed By The Assessee Are As Under:

For Appellant: V. Shah, A.RsFor Respondent: Shri Ketan Gajjar, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 147

therefore, the AO passed assessment order under Section 144 of the Act and made addition of Rs. 16,83,123/- thereby disallowing the cost of improvement and brokerage expenses on account of cost on transport. 4. Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before

Mr.P.C.Jose, Cochin vs. DCIT, Cochin

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed, and the Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 54/COCH/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Apr 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasp.C. Jose Deputy Commissioner Of Prop. Brothers Agencies Income Tax, Circle-2(1) Jews Street Vs. Kochi Ernakulam 682031 [Pan: Abbpj8250F] (Appellant) (Respondent) Deputy Commissioner Of P.C. Jose Income Tax, Circle-2(1) Prop. Brothers Agencies Kochi Vs. Jews Street Ernakulam 682031 [Pan: Abbpj8250F] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: ----- None -----For Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)

appellant challenges the disallowance of development expenses of Rs. 42,25,059/-. The assessing officer has stated that no evidence as to the cost of improvements was produced. The appellant's representative submits that cost of development incurred during the year is only Rs. 10,34,350/-. The balance amount ... clearing boundaries, are, firstly, of expenses which would rather yield vouchers in the ordinary course of business. None of them though, however, is cost of improvement. Determining and clearing boundaries are expenses connected with purchase or, as the case may be, sale, and thus deductible. Getting certificate is toward

Kumudini Narendra Mishra, Nagpur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4, Nagpur

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 72/NAG/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur22 Apr 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: Shri Abhay Agrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 148

breaching principles of natural justice. 6. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred in disallowing indexed cost of improvement of Rs.22,53,021 claimed in respect of sale of property situated at Nagpur. 7. The assessee craves leave to add or amend ... within three effective opportunities of hearing to the assessee, in consequential proceedings. Ordered accordingly. 9. Lastly the assessee’s 6th substantive ground claiming cost of improvement of Rs.22,53,021/- in respect of the relevant capital asset herein. Learned counsel could hardly dispute that not only the assessee could

Vaishali Babubhai Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT-3, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 380/AHD/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No. 380/Ahd/2020 धििाधरणवरध/Asstt. Year: 2015-2016 Vaishali Babubhai Patel, The Principal Commissioner B-201, Vs. Of Income Tax-3, Gala Gardenia Apartments, Ahmedabad. Nr. Safal Parisar, South Bopal, Ahmedabad-380058. Pan: Abdpp0233G

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr.Advocate with Shri Parimalsinh B Parmar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Durga Dutt, CIT. DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54F

return. However, the Ld. PCIT on examination of the assessment records observed certain facts as detailed below: 1. The part of the cost of improvement was incurred prior to the acquisition of property. A.Y. 2015-16 3 2. The assesee has claimed the deduction on the cost of improvement ... assessee was not the legal/beneficial owner of the impugned land, hence the expenses incurred before 1.3.2004 cannot be considered as the cost of improvements in the hands of the assessee. Moreover, the assessee further submitted that out of the total expenses pertaining to cost of improvement of Rs.28

Srikanth, Chennai vs. ITO, Non Corporate Ward-2(1), Chennai

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

ITA 774/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G & Shri Manomohan Dasआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.774/Chny/2023 िनधा(रण वष( /Assessment Year: 2016-17 Shri Srikanth, The Income Tax Officer, 55, S2, 2Nd Floor, Vs. Non Corporate Ward-2(1), Damodaran Street, T Nagar, Chennai. Chennai – 600 017. [Pan: Aamps-0572-M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ* की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate ,-थ* की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01.04.2024 : 10.04.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Manjunatha G: This Appeal By Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax, National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 25.05.2023 In The Matter Of Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) On 14-12-2018. The Ground Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Is As Under:

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 54

sale consideration of Rs. 5,05,00,000/- and he has taken cost of acquisition at Rs.13,90,018/- (as on 01.04.1981) and cost of improvement is at Rs. 6,95,120/- as on 2007-08. Comparing the LTCG of Rs. 3,30,75,139/-. The assessee has claimed exemption ... gain at Nil. The Ld. CIT(A) has allowed the cost of acquisition at Rs. 5,95,365/- as on 01.04.1981 and :- 4 -: cost of improvement at Rs. 6,95,120/- as on 2007-08 subject to verification. The Ld. CIT(A) has further allowed exemption

Sunil Kapoor, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle Intl. Taxation 2(1)(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3314/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Apr 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2021-22 Shri Sunil Kapoor, Vs. Acit K-77, Lajpat Nagar-Ii, Circle Intt. New Delhi-110 024 Taxation 2(1)(2) Pan Aoips5698J New Delhi. (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Tyagi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)

consideration 14,55,00,000.00 Less: Index cost of acquisition Cost of acquisition f/y 2009-10 85,47,364.00 1,73,83,490.30 Cost of Improvement in 2010-11 73,00,000.00 1,31,57,485.03 3,05,40,975.33 Long term capital gain 11,49,59,024.67 Less: Deduction ... issued show cause notice to the assessee to explain why in the absence of documentary evidence the indexed cost of improvement of Rs. 1,31,57,486/- and transfer expenses of Rs. 45,00,000/- be not disallowed. Additionally, in the absence of copy of capital gains account scheme statement

Shri Rattan Singh, Panipat vs. ITO, Panipat

In the result, the appeal of the appellant is dismissed

ITA 807/DEL/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Apr 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri M. Balaganeshrattan Singh, Vs. Ito, S/O. Shri Tek Chand, Ward-2, Panipat Village-Nizampur, Panipat (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aespc4005K Assessee By : None Revenue By: Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 02/04/2024 Date Of Pronouncement /04/2024

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 54BSection 54F

denying the benefit of claim of deduction u/s 54B in respect of cost of claim of deduction u/s 54B in respect of cost of improvement of new Agriculture Land purchased at Garhi Multan Vill. Kohnd by way of construction of Tubewell/Shed/Water Tank at Rs. 6,00,000/- is highly arbitrary ... capital gains arising on sale of land. The assessee was asked to furnish documentary evidence in support of cost of improvement claimed by the assessee amounting to Rs. 15,14,550/- as well as the basis for cost of land as on 01.04.1981 arrived by the assessee

Ranjan Rhode, New Delhi vs. ITO(International Taxation), Ward-3(1)(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 4887/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Mar 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

Section 144Section 54

produced. The only issue to be decided is whether the assessee is entitled for deduction u/s 54 of the Act and also the cost of improvement while computing the long term capital gains. Perusal of the assessment order passed u/s 144 of the Act dated 15.12.2016 shows that the assessee ... issued and did not file requisite details in respect of his claim for deduction u/s 54 of the Act and the evidences for cost of improvement. The AO computed the long term capital gain denying the claim for deduction u/s 54 of the Act. The Assessing Officer also denied cost

Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax-Central Circle5(4), Mumbai vs. M/S. Larsen & Toubro Limited ( Formerly Known As L & T Shipbuilding Limited ), Mumbai

ITA 2350/MUM/2023[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2024AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year: 2016-17 Dy. Commissioner Of M/S. Larsen & Toubro Income Tax, Limited (Formerly Known Central Circle-5(4), As L & T Shipbuilding Room No.1927, 19Th Floor, Limited), Vs. Air India Building, L&T House, Nariman Point, N.M. Marg, Mumbai - 400021 Ballard Estate, Mumbai – 400 001 Pan: Aaacl0140P (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra, D.R

Section 48(1)Section 50B

gains provisions contained under section 48 are applicable which provide that while computing the capital gain the value of consideration reduced by the cost of improvement and cost of acquisition and also expenditure incurred for transfers are to be considered. 13. When the income of the assessee is chargeable under

Chirag Bharatbhai Amin, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Gandhinagar

In the result, assessee's appeal stands allowed

ITA 1694/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Ms. Madhumita Roy (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Divatia, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri C. Dharninath V.S, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 55ASection 66A

market value as ascertained by the registered valuer is prayed for restoration. 3. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in not allowing the cost of improvement as claimed by the appellant. The Ld. CIT (A) has wrongly differentiated the case of ITO v. Anilkumar 56 Taxmann.com 320 with the case ... appellant even though it is held that the cost of improvement cannot be declined only for the want of evidence. He disregards the fact that for a property worth Rs.3 cr. Improvement cost of Rs. 9L is a meager amount and should not be denied. Thus the disallowance sustained

Shri Charanjit Singh, Patiala vs. The Addl. CIT, Range, Patiala

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 337/CHANDI/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Mar 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Us.

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR

that the assessee ,while returning the income from capital gains of Rs.2,16,45,122/-, had claimed an amount of Rs.9 lacs towards cost of improvement of the property sold. The AO asked the assessee to substantiate its claim of the said expenditure with evidence. The assessee produced vouchers, which ... deduction at source on the payment made was provided by the assessee. Accordingly, he disallowed the deduction claimed by the assessee of the cost of improvement while calculating the capital gains earned. 5. Aggrieved by the same, the assessee went in appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). Detailed submissions were filed