“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

Prasanna Kumar, Mangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation, Circle-2(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 229/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaranit(It)A No.229/Bang/2022 (Assessment Year:2018-19) Shri Prasanna Kumar Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax 4-3-298/12, Palemar International Taxation Vs. Bejai Church, Cross Road Circle - 2(2), Bangalore Mangalore 575004 Pan –Bfapk0601P Appellant Respondent Appellant By: Smt. Sheetal, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Advocate Standing Counsel For Revenue Date Of Hearing: 26.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.05.2022

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Advocate

Section 143(3)Section 50C

Resolution Panel (DRP). 2. The assessee is aggrieved by the decision of the AO on the following issues: (a) Rejection of claim of cost of improvement (b) Right of carry forward of loss 3. The facts relating to the first issue are that the assessee is a non- resident ... purchase consideration of Rs.70 lakhs + registration charges of Rs.5,49,900/-). In addition of the above, the assessee had also claimed the indexed cost of improvement of Rs.45 lakhs as deduction against the sale consideration. The dispute is related to the above said claim of Rs.45.00 lakhs

Mr. Hasmukh Purushottam Gandhi, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle-4(3)(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed and the order of the A

ITA 500/MUM/2021[20169-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 May 2022

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2016-17 Mr. Hasmukh Purushottam Acit, Gandhi, Circle-4(3)(2), Flat No.82, Aayakar Bhavan, A-Wing, M.K. Road, Vs. Kalpataru Residency, Mumbai - 400020 Opp. Cine Planet, Sion East, Mumbai – 400 022 Pan: Aeopg8109A (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri C.V. Jain, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Sonia Kumar, D.R

Section 143(3)

case and in law, the Ld. CIT-A has failed to appreciate that the Ld, A.O. had erred in disallowing Indexed Cost of Improvement consisting of Repairs, Renovation, Furniture and Fixtures amounting to Rs.2,56,59,868/- while computing Capital Gain/ Loss on sale of House Property. 3. Without prejudice ... year under consideration has sold two properties one residential and another an office premises. The assessee while computing the capital gain, claimed indexed cost of improvement and renovation of flat and office premises and cost of furniture and fixtures to the tune of Rs.1,56,15,833/- and Rs.25

Tmf Holding Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT -1, Mumbai

ITA 1628/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Bletmf Holdings Ltd., V. Pr.Cit – 1 {Formerly Known As Tata Motors Finance Ltd.,} 3Rd Floor, Room No. 330 10Th Floor, 106 A & B Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Maker Chamber-Iii Mumbai - 400020 Nariman Point, Mumbai Pan: Aacct4644A (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Nikhil Tiwari Assessee By : Department By : Shri S.N. Kabra

For Appellant: Department byFor Respondent: Shri S.N. Kabra

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 47

whole is considered as one capital asset and the net worth of this capital asset is considered as cost of acquisition and cost of improvement for the purposes of sections 48 and 49. Therefore, it becomes patent that section 50B is a code in itself only for the determination ... cost of acquisition and cost of improvement of the undertaking but not for the computation of capital gains in case of slump sale. The object of section 50B is to simply determine and supply the figure of cost of acquisition and cost of improvement of the undertaking to section

Late Smt.K.Leelavathy, by L/R Shri M.Thimmegowda, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 755/BANG/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Apr 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Bharath L, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 153CSection 2(14)(iii)

agricultural (1/2/2018) (6/8/1993) land Total 19500000 571635 0 261650 18666715 0 Sale of Agricultural land – Cost : 253138*(551/244) = 5,71,635 Cost of improvement: 1,84,722*(551/389) = 2,61,650 Exempt income : 1,95,00,000 AY 2009-10 Particulars Sales Price/ Indexed Transfer Indexed Exempt Capital Year cost/year ... details of mode of payment received. If the amount is received through bank account, provide copies of relevant bank statement. 3. Details of cost of improvement claimed with year of improvement. Sources of funds for such improvement. 4. Details of land purchased during the year alongwith a copy of purchase

Late Smt.K.Leelavathy by L/R Shri M.Thimmegowda, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 754/BANG/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Apr 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Bharath L, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 153CSection 2(14)(iii)

Late Smt.K>Leelavathy by L/R Shri.M.Thimmegowda, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 753/BANG/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Apr 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Bharath L, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 153CSection 2(14)(iii)

Late Smt.K.Leelavathy by L/R Shri M.Thimmegowda, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 752/BANG/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Apr 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Bharath L, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 153CSection 2(14)(iii)

Shri Rajeev Nataraj Legal Heir of Late Shri P Nataraj, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-10(2), Bangalore

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

ITA 848/BANG/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Mar 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2008-09 Shri Rajeev Nataraj, L/H Of Late Shri P Nataraj, No. 63, 1St Cross, The Income Tax Udaya Nagar, Officer, Chikkalsandra, Off Ward 10(2), Uttarahalli Road, Bangalore. Vs. Bangalore – 560 061. Pan: Ahapn9475D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri H. Siva Prasad Reddy, Ar : Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl. Revenue By Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 09-02-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 31-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 11/02/2019 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A)-3, Bangalore For Assessment Year 2008-09 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Impugned Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax [Appeals] U/S 250 Of The Act & That Of The Order Of Assessment Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer Under Section 143[3] R/W 147 Of The Act To The Extent Which Is Against The Appellant Is Opposed To Law, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Appellant'S Case. 2. The Order Of Assessment Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer Under Section 143[3] R.W.S 147 Of The Act Is Bad In Law Since The Mandatory Conditions As Envisaged

For Appellant: Shri H. Siva Prasad Reddy, AR

Section 143Section 234Section 250Section 54

issues:  Basis of Adopting Cost of Acquisition of the Land and building at Rs. 16.20 Lakhs as at 01/04/1981 (FMV)  Disallowance of Indexed Cost of Improvement Rs. 4,13,250/-  Eligibility of Exemption u/s 54 or u/s. 54F. 2.7 The Ld.AO accepted the FMV of land and building as Rs.6

Anjan Shivaraju Prakash, Mumbai vs. ITO, -6(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5083/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () & Shri Gagan Goyal ()

Section 250Section 54

Your appellant submits that the car parking spaces be treated as an integral part of the flat, being the cost of improvement thereof, and sale thereof should be considered as part of the sale of the flat itself for the purpose of computation of capital gains

DCIT 1(1), Mumbai vs. Acc Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 1185/MUM/2009[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Mar 2022AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1185/Mum/2009 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2003-04) Dcit-1(1) बिधम/ M/S. Acc Ltd. Room No.579, Aayakar Cement House, 121, M. K. Vs. Bhavan, Mumbai-400020. Road, Mumbai-400020. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaact1507C (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Ms.Shailja Rai (Dr) Assessee By: Shri Yogesh Thar सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 10/01/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 02/03/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 28.11.2008 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -I Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2003- 04. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: - " L. “Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Cit (A) Is Right In Directing To Delete The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer On Account Of Unutilized Modvat Credit & Further In Directing To Allow The Relief Of Rs. 12,09,86,528/- Instead Of Rs. 3,21,85,825/-.” A.Y.2003-04 2. “Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Cit (A) Is Right In Deleting The Addition In Respect Of Corporation Tax Paid At Saudi Arabia Of Rs. 2,05,75,346/-.”

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh TharFor Respondent: Ms.Shailja Rai (DR)

Section 115JSection 154Section 251Section 80H

cost of acquisition for the purpose of computing long term capital gain. Further, the appellant is also entitled to reduce indexed cost of improvement as per provisions of second proviso to section 48 of the Act in computing long term capital gain. Thus, in the light of the aforesaid discussions ... long term capital gain on sale of land by considering the fair market value as on 1.4.1981 as well as the indexed cost of improvement as submitted by the appellant after verification of correctness of the facts as well as the registered valuer‟s report. Hence, these grounds of appeal

Sri. Sandeep Srinivas, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 7(2)(4), Bangalore

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

ITA 7/BANG/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Feb 2022AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Smt. Prathibha .R, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.K. Biju, Addl. CIT (DR)

Section 143(2)Section 54Section 54F

transfer as per guidance value on 18-11-2014 Rs,4,29,28,200/- (71547 x Rs.600/-sq.ft Less cost of acquisition - Cost of improvement - Less cost of conversion - Total capital Gains — assessee's share Rs.4,29,28,200 Less exemption u/s 54F Es.1,82,84,840/- TAXABLE LONG TERM

M/S. Medi Assist Insurance Tpa Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-12(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands dismissed

ITA 1933/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Medi Assist Insurance Tpa Pvt. Ltd., The Dy. Commissioner Of Tower ‘D’, 4Th Floor, Ibc Income-Tax, Knowledge Park, 4/1 Bannerghatta Vs. Circle - 4(1)(2), Main Road, Bengaluru. Bengaluru-560 029. Pan –Aaccm 8044 P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Prabhu, C.A Revenue By : Shri Sumeer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 10.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.02.2022 O R D E R Per Beena Pillaithis Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(A)- 4, Bangalore Dated 22/3/2018 For The Asst. Year 2011-12 For Computing The Short Term Capital Gain At Rs.7,80,38,353/-. 2. The Assessee Raised The Following Grounds Before Us “(I) On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Learned Dcit & Cit(A) Erred In Computing The Short Term Capital Gain At Rs.7,80,38,353/- By Adding The Negative Net-Worth Instead Of Restricting The Same To Nil As Deeded Cost, Since Cost Cannot Be A Negative Value Page 2 Of 19

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Prabhu, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sumeer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)

Section 142(1)Section 50B

minus all liabilities of the undertaking as one unit, now let us examine the question of determination of the cost of acquisition and cost of improvement or 'Net worth' of the undertaking u/s. 50B. the methodology for computing net worth had been given in Explanation 1 read with Explanation ... legislature has used the expression "net worth" which by deeming fiction is to be considered as cost of acquisition and cost of Improvement for the purpose of computing capital gain u/s 48. Section 48 of the Act provides for deduction or cost of acquisition/improvement from the full value of consideration

ITO 25(2)(5), Mumbai vs. Kirit Raojibhai Patel, Mumbai

In the result appeal of the learned AO is dismissed

ITA 2339/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Feb 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Sri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Sri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm The Income Tax Officer- Kirit Raojibhai Patel 25(2)(5) 5Th Floor Ram Niwas, 34, Room No. 506, C-10, Vallabhnagar, N.S. Road, Vs. Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Bkc, Juhu, Vile Parele(W), Mumbai-400 051 Mumbai-400 049 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabpp3139J Assessee Represented By : Shri Rashmikant Choksey, Ar Department Represented By : Shri K.K. Mishra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 08.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.02.2022

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 2Section 45Section 50Section 54Section 54F

allowing deduction of ₹ 40 lakhs/– deposited in capital gain account scheme utilised for renovation of the new flat which is nothing but the cost of improvement and thus cannot be included in the cost of new flat for the purpose of claiming deduction u/s 54F. 03. Brief facts ... value as on 1/4/1980 one is ₹ 250,003 and 76/– which is indexed for the relevant assessment year 2,50,367*519/100 3 Cost of improvement Nil Kirit Raojibhai Patel; AY 07-08 4 deduction u/s 54 EC with respect to 95,00,000 the investment in RECs capital bond

Mr. Varun Prabhakar, Bengaluru vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(2)(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 548/BANG/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaranassessmentyear:2017-18

For Appellant: Smt. Sunaina Bhatia, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel for dept

Rs.2,52,50,000/- The assessee claimed to have incurred a sum of Rs.1,64,232/- in the financial year 2000-01 as cost of improvement. The indexed cost of the same amounting to Rs.4,55,076/- was claimed as deduction while computing long term capital gain. The A.O. disallowed ... expenditures are directly related to the property under consideration or not. Accordingly, he took the view that the A.O. has rightly disallowed the cost of improvement of Rs.1,64,232/-. Accordingly, he dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Hence, the assessee has filed this appeal before the Tribunal. Mr. Varun

M/S. S P R Developers Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 1(3), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 297/BANG/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri L Bharath, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT (DR)

Section 153A

Held, yes [Paras 24 and 26][ln favour of assessee] II. Section 48 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 - Capital gains - Computation of (Cost of improvement) - Assessment year 2013-14 - Assessee submitted details regarding development expenses which includes levelling, stone supply charges, machine charges, repairs of boundary walls and wells ... lakhs while computing long term capital Gain - Whether there being no infirmity in findings of Commissioner (Appeals) in allowing these expenses towards cost of improvement, findings of Commissioner (Appeals) were to be confirmed - Held, yes [Para 35] [In favour of assessee] III. Section 37(1) of the Income

M/S. S P R Developers Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 1(3), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 296/BANG/2020[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri L Bharath, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT (DR)

Section 153A

M/S. S P R Developers Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 1(3), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 295/BANG/2020[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri L Bharath, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT (DR)

Section 153A

Shri D.Dasappa, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2223/BANG/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri L. Bharath, CAFor Respondent: Capt. Pradeep Shoury Arya, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT)

Section 132Section 153CSection 2(14)Section 80

agricultural (1/2/2018) (6/8/1993) land Total 19500000 571635 0 261650 18666715 0 Sale of Agricultural land – Cost : 253138*(551/244) = 5,71,635 Cost of improvement: 1,84,722*(551/389) = 2,61,650 Exempt income : 1,95,00,000 AY 2009-10 Particulars Sales Price/ Indexed Transfer Indexed Exempt Capital Year cost/year ... details of mode of payment received. If the amount is received through bank account, provide copies of relevant bank statement. 3. Details of cost of improvement claimed with year of improvement. Sources of funds for such improvement. ITA Nos.2222 & 2223/Bang/2016 Page 10 of 82 4. Details of land purchased during

Shri D.Dasappa, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2222/BANG/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri L. Bharath, CAFor Respondent: Capt. Pradeep Shoury Arya, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT)

Section 132Section 153CSection 2(14)Section 80

agricultural (1/2/2018) (6/8/1993) land Total 19500000 571635 0 261650 18666715 0 Sale of Agricultural land – Cost : 253138*(551/244) = 5,71,635 Cost of improvement: 1,84,722*(551/389) = 2,61,650 Exempt income : 1,95,00,000 AY 2009-10 Particulars Sales Price/ Indexed Transfer Indexed Exempt Capital Year cost/year ... details of mode of payment received. If the amount is received through bank account, provide copies of relevant bank statement. 3. Details of cost of improvement claimed with year of improvement. Sources of funds for such improvement. ITA Nos.2222 & 2223/Bang/2016 Page 10 of 82 4. Details of land purchased during

Smt. Jyoti Raghuram Desai, Kalaburagi vs. Asst.C.I.T., Kalaburagi

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

ITA 1206/BANG/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Feb 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Shree Hari Kutsa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl.CIT-DR

Section 250

reported in 62 ITR 212. 3. The learned Assessing Officer is not justified in denying the claim of the Appellant towards the indexed cost of improvement of Rs.l0,85,466/- on the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. The learned Assessing Officer is not justified in denying the claim ... reported in 62 ITR 212. 1. The learned Assessing Officer is not justified in denying the claim of the Appellant towards the indexed cost of improvement of Rs.l0,85,466/- on the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The learned Assessing Officer is not justified in denying the claim