“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

Sangita Ramchandra Mahadik, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 81(2), Pune

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

ITA 2419/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2419/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Sangita Ramchandra Mahadik, Ito, Ward-81(2), Pune E-704, Dewdale Housing Society, Opposite Tranquille Society, Vs. Datta Mandir Road, Wakad, Pune-411057 Pan : Ajipm3603J अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Kamal Valvani Department By : Shri Amit Bobde Date Of Hearing : 28-01-2026 Date Of 30-01-2026 Pronouncement :

For Appellant: Shri Kamal ValvaniFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148

case, and therefore entire additions needs to be deleted. 2. The learned Assessing Officer has not considered Cost of Purchase Assets & Cost of Improvement. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned Assessing Officer making addition of Rs.1

Crystal Ice and Cold Stor Age, Mangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Mangaluru

In the result, Appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2309/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice –Assessment Year :2016-17 M/S. Crystal Ice & Cold Storage, Plot No. 395-A1 Industrial Area, The Income Tax Officer, Baikampady New, Mangalore, Ward-1(1), Vs. Mangaluru, Karnataka – 575011. Mangaluru. Pan: Aaefc9692E Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, Advocate

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 194I

persons to whom the payments are made through State Bank of Mysore account on 17, 21 and 22 July. With respect to the cost of improvement, it was submitted that the same were incurred in 2005-08 and details are not available. Further, it was submitted that when the Assessee ... filed return in response to section 148 of the Act and in absence of any supporting documents, the indexed cost of improvement cannot be allowed to the Assessee. Accordingly, he disallowed the cost of improvement to the Assessee and total income was computed

Nivrutti Pandurang Bhor, Mumbai vs. ITO 27(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3589/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Mr. Nivrutti Pandurang Bhor, Income Tax Officer - 27(2)(1), B/502, Shiv Prerna Chs. Lts, Tower No.6, Andheri Link Road, Vs. Vashi Railway Station Complex, Asalpha Village, Vashi Navi Mumbai– 400 703 Mumbai – 400 072 Pan:Aagpb5212K (Appellant) (Respondent) :

For Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. AR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263Section 54

dated 15.03.2021 to conduct further enquiry into the claim of LTCG and cash deposits by observing that the assessee had taken indexed cost of improvement while calculating capital loss whereas the assessee had not made any improvement to the property sold by the assessee. The Ld. PCIT also noted that ... response to the observation made by the Ld. Pr. CIT 2 Mr. Nivrutti Pandurang Bhor with regard to the indexed cost of improvement, the assessee submitted before the Ld. AO that purchase cost of the new flat was entered as indexed cost of improvement by mistake which resulted in incorrect

Anshu Dhawan, Gurgaon vs. Income Tax Officer, NFAC

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4182/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jan 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S.Rifaur Rahmananshu Dhawan, Vs. Income Tax Officer, House No.933, Sector 17B, Delhi. Gurgaon – 122 001 (Haryana). (Pan : Aggpd5365D) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ashwani Kumar, Ca Shri Ankur Agarwal, Ca Revenue By : Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 10.11.2025 Date Of Order : 30.01.2026 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 250

called for. 3. During assessment proceedings, the AO observed that assessee has declared LTCG loss of Rs.45,80,056/- and observed that total cost of improvement with indexation at Rs.1,83,73,704/- was claimed. The assessee was asked to submit the details in respect to cost of acquisition ... cost of improvement. He observed that assessee along with her husband booked unit bearing No.PTS-01-501, 5th Floor, Palm Terraces Select, Sector 66, Golf Course Extension Road, Gurgaon with the developer, Emaar MGF Land Limited in the year 2010. In this regard, assessee has submitted copy of registered buyer

Amarjit Singh Marwaha, Shimla vs. ITO, National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1379/CHANDI/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadavआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1379/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Shri Amarjit Singh Marwaha, The Ito, Cottage No.1, Sadhora, Vs Ward-1, Mashobra, Baldeyan, Shimla. Shimla. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aeepm0161N अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Vishal Mohan Sr.Advocate, With Shri Abhinav Bijwaria, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. Cit Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 21.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.01.2026

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Mohan Sr.Advocate, with Shri Abhinav Bijwaria, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT Sr.DR

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 45Section 54Section 54F

assessee, thus, total sale consideration was Rs.38,75,000/-. He has given benefit of cost of acquisition of Rs.8 lacs and cost of improvement of Rs.2 lacs. In this way, he has calculated Long Term Capital Gain at Rs.28,65,000/-. Thereafter, it was demonstrated by the assessee that

Saritha Flavina Dsouza, Mangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(1), Mangalore

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

ITA 1363/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Sanketh S Nayak, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate – Standing

Section 139Section 147Section 48

erred in computing the long-term capital gains arising from sale of the immovable property by ignoring the cost of acquisition and cost of improvement attributable to the residential house constructed on the land. It was pointed out that the assessee had inherited only a 25% share of the property ... supported the orders of the AO and the learned CIT(A). He submitted that the burden to establish the cost of acquisition and cost of improvement squarely lies on the assessee and, in the absence of cogent documentary evidence, no deduction can be allowed merely on the basis of estimates

DCIT, Central Circle, Ghaziabad vs. M/S Dee Ess Properties Private Limited, Ghaziabad

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is hereby dismissed

ITA 4070/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2013-14

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 68Section 69

profit & loss account. Further, the appellant stated that, even if, the said expenditure is to be considered excessive, it will only reduce cost of improvement of land which has been adjustedto the cost of acquisition of agricultural land which is not a capital asset leading thereby to no difference ... same was never debited to the P&L account and furthermore the expenditure being considered too excessive it could only reduce the cost of improvement of land which has been adjusted to the cost of acquisition of agricultural land which is neither a capital asset meaning thereby no difference

Hemant Jashubhai Gandhi, Surat vs. ACIT Circle 1(3), Surat

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

ITA 361/SRT/2025[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Surat23 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms Suchitra Kamblehemant Jashubhai Gandhi, The Assistant Commissioner Vs. 20-B, Shree Shaktinagar Society, Of Income Tax, Opp. Experimental School, Circle-1(3), Nr. Ambika Ni Ketan Temple, Surat. Parle Point, Surat-395007. [Pan : Aawpg3547 Q] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Ashish Bhoola, Ar Respondent By: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 21.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 23.01.2026 O R D E R Per Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-:-

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Bhoola, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. DR

Section 250

Rs.38,69,451/- 2. The CIT(A) has erred in confirming disallowance of Rs.4,76,250 (1.e.75% of Rs.6,35,000/-) being Cost of Improvement fully incurred by the 3. That the disallowance of Cost of Inflation of Rs.38,69,451/- & disallowance of Cost of Improvement of Rs.4 ... respect of Ground Nos. 2 and 3, the Assessing Officer made disallowance on account of indexed cost of inflation and cost of improvement, which was summarily confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A). Upon perusal of the records and the details of expenses filed by the assessee before us, which have

Ghanshyambhai Dungarbhai Sutariya, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 3(2)(2), Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1277/SRT/2024[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Surat23 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Sapnesh Sheth, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms Namita Patel, Sr. DR

Section 250

short “the Act”] for the Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.16,75,627/- by disallowing the cost of improvement. The facts of the case are that assessee purchased land for Rs.1,30,000/- during the year 2005-06 and constructed a house and sold ... cannot be supported the house has built for a period of 13 years, hence, the computation made by the Assessing Officer determining the cost of improvement cannot be accepted. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. The order is pronounced in the open Court

ACIT Circle-28(1) Delhi, New Delhi vs. Metoropol Corporation India, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 29/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)

consideration of Rs.73.50 crores of the property situated at Okhla Industrial Estate, Phase II, New Delhi. He observed that assessee has claimed index cost of improvement, indexed cost of conversion and transfer expenses. The Assessing Officer observed that conversion charges of Rs.20,78,502/- is revenue in nature ... documents/papers in support of the above claim but assessee failed to submit the documentary evidences. Further he observed that assessee has claimed indexed cost of improvement to the extent of Rs.2,68,45,707/-. The assessee was also show caused to explain and produce the relevant documents and papers. However

Manoj Kumar Chowrah, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1614/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

Section 69A

unexplained investment. 4. The Hon’ble CIT(A) erred in holding that the assessee has no evidence for cost of improvement to the property to the extent of Rs. 1,00,000/-, though the assessee has submitted the evidences justifying the same, and thereby erred in making addition ... unexplained cost of improvement. 5. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, substitute, withdraw, modify or raise any further grounds of appeal at the time of hearing, as may be deemed necessary.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee is an individual, who filed

Kishor K Kasta, Porbandar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(4), Porbandar

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed, in above terms

ITA 892/RJT/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot16 Jan 2026AY 2015-2016

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 892/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: (2015-16) Kishor K. Kasta Vs. Ito Ward-2(4), R. K. Jetty, Plot Vistar, Okha Porbandar - 361350 Porbandar (Guj) – 361350 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Awbpk9704A (Assessee) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Dushyant Maharshi, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Gopi Nath Chaubey Ld. Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 50C

follows: 1. Ld. AO as well as CIT(Appeals) has erred in not considering the bills and ledgers for deduction of cost of improvement produced by the assessee during the appellate stage and taking view that the assessee has failed to produce bank account statement that corroborate these bills ... confirmed the addition made by the assessing officer. Before learned CIT(A), the assessee submitted that he is entitled for indexed cost of improvement, which has not been provided to the assessee. That is, assessee has contested that the Assessing Officer has not taken into account the cost of improvement

Sunil Kumar Singh, Patna vs. ITO, Ward- 6 (1), Patna

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

ITA 390/PAT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Patna15 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: the sale of immovable properties on which long term capital gain was derived.

Section 250Section 251(2)Section 3Section 54BSection 54F

under Section 69C of the Act for non-comply of the show cause notice issued by the Ld. CIT(A) to substantiate the cost of improvement incurred by the assessee. The ld. CIT(A) issued show cause notice on 17.06.2025 and allowing time to the assessee ... substantiate its claim made under Section 54F of the Act and during the appellate proceeding, the assessee could not furnish the documents towards cost of improvement as claimed in the income tax return and the assessee has given reply of the show cause notice issued by both the authorities below

Prem Singh, Chamba vs. ACIT Circle Palampur, Palampur

In the result, the appeal for AY 2017-18 stands partly allowed

ITA 947/CHANDI/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 946/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 947/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Prem Singh Dcit Circle, Palampur बनाम/ The Palace. Chamba Himachal Pradesh - 176061 Vs. Himachal Pradesh – 176310 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aampr-8876-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ajay Jain (Ca) – Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri Bharat Bhushan Garg (Cit) (Virtual) - Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13-11-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13-01-2026 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. The Assessee Is In Further Appeals Before Us For Assessment Years (Ay) 2015-16 & 2017-18 Which Arises Out Of Separate Orders Of Learned First Appellate Authority. First, We Take Up Appeal For Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16 Which Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac [Cit(A)] Dated 22-07-2025 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S 143(3) Of The Act On 29-12-2017. The Assessee Is Aggrieved By Computation Of Capital

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Jain (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Bharat Bhushan Garg (CIT) (Virtual) - Ld. DR

Section 143(3)Section 48Section 54Section 54F

undisputed fact that emerges is that the assessee has claimed whole cost of acquisition of land as well as cost of improvement / construction in this year only and it has not claimed any cost of acquisition or cost of improvement in AY 2017-18. An affidavit to that effect ... payment has apparently been made towards civil contract services which include cleaning, leveling, land-scaping, fencing etc. which would be nothing but cost of improvement of the land and hence, allowable deduction to the assessee. Considering all these facts, we direct Ld. AO to grant the deduction of Rs.97 Lacs

Sh. Devendra Dutt Pant, Haridwar vs. DCIT, Uttarkahand

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 149/DDN/2025[2106-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun14 Jan 2026AY 2106-2017

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Manish Agarwal

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Aggarwal, Sr. Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. A. S. Rana, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 54BSection 54E

learned AO has failed to appreciate the fact that the assessee - appellant relevant documentary evidences in shape of valuer’s certificate, certifying the cost of improvement incurred by assessee - appellant in preceding assessment years (kindly see pages ... claim to uphold the learned lower authorities’ respective findings in very terms. 10. Next comes the assessee’s second substantive issue of the cost of improvement claimed to the tune of Rs.31,26,815/- which stands accepted to the extent of Rs.9,94,563/- in the assessment order. The Assessing

Ranjit V Srivatsaa, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-3(2), Chennai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1755/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Ms. G.Vardini Karthik, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 54Section 54F

Assessee's share Rs. 3,50,00,000/- Less: Cost of acquisition with indexation Rs. 3,22,462/- --------------------- Rs.3.46,77,538/- Cost of improvement claimed 6,28,488/- Since no proof is provided hence the same is disallowed. Expenditure wholly & exclusively in connection with transfer Rs. 372,500/- Long Term

Sowmya Chalasani, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-6(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 706/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.706/Hyd/2025 Assessment Year 2018-2019 Sowmya Chalasani, The Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad – 500 073. Ward-6(1), Telangana. Vs. Hyderabad. Pan Amopc6392F (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Ca Maitreya राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Ms U Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 07.01.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 09.01.2026 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: CA MaitreyaFor Respondent: MS U Mini Chandran, CIT-DR

Section 139Section 147Section 148

erred in computing the capital gains of Rs.8,39,26,364 on the property at Jubilee Hills and Image Garden disallowing the cost of improvement incurred by the Assessee 3. The Ld CIT(A) ought to have allowed the cost of improvement of Rs.96,49,650 incurred by the Assessee ... erred in computing the capital gains of Rs.8,39,26,364 on the sale of property disallowing the cost of improvement incurred by the Assessee 5. The Ld CIT(A) ought to have allowed the interest expense claimed by the assessee on income from House property amounting to Rs.2

Manish Pahwa, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 45(2), New Delhi

The appeal is partly allowed with consequences to follow as

ITA 3270/DEL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shuklaassessment Year: 2011-12 Manish Pahwa, Vs Ito, J-554, Rajouri Garden, Ward-45(2), New Delhi– 110 027. Delhi. Pan: Aaapp0676M

For Appellant: Shri Nitin Gulati, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms Ankush Kalra, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 69Section 69C

account of unexplained investment in the property as reflected in the balance sheet and Rs.24,15,000/- were added on account of cost of improvement in the property being not explained in terms of source of the transaction. The same stand sustained by ld. CIT(A) of which the assessee ... Addition of Rs.24.15 lakh as Unexplained Improvement 4. Expenditure made under Section 69C of the Act. During assessment, Rs.24.15 lakh claimed as cost of improvement of a property which was sold by the assessee was disallowed and treated as unexplained expenditure under Section 69C of the Act. The assessee

Murtuza Kothari, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 19(2)(2), Mumbai

Accordingly, ground nos. 1 & 2 of the assessee are partly allowed for

ITA 4080/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Otwani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kosuri, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 48Section 49Section 50CSection 54

submissions made. 2. The FAA i.e, CIT(A) went on to confirm the Order of A.O and erred in denying the deduction of cost of improvement computed by the appellant and considering it at NIL, for the reasons mentioned in the impugned order or otherwise ... gain at Rs. 86,00,000/- and a deduction was claimed under section 48 of the Act for Rs. 83,62,976/- as cost of improvement with indexation, thus Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) of Rs. 2,37,024/- has been disclosed. The Id. AO, further examined the issue

Adhi Kumara Guru, Chennai vs. DCIT, Ncc-22(1), Chennai

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

ITA 120/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Amitabh Shuklaमाननीय "ी मनु कुमार िग"र, "ाियक सद" एवं माननीय "ी अिमताभ शु"ा, लेखा सद" के सम"

For Appellant: Mr. P.M. Kathir, Advocate for Mr.G.Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R Anitha, Addl.CIT

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 54F

passed on 28.11.2016, assessing the total income at subsequently passed on 28.11.2016, assessing the total income at Rs.61,77,060/- after disallowing the cost of improvement of after disallowing the cost of improvement of after disallowing the cost of improvement of Rs.15,00,000/- claimed by the claimed ... computation of STCG, it is observed that the perusal of the computation of STCG, it is observed that the assessee claimed cost of improvement of Rs.15,00,000/ assessee claimed cost of improvement of Rs.15,00,000/-. However, However, no evidence, whatsoever, is furnished to substantiate the said o evidence