← All Phrases

“cost of improvement”

Capital GainsSection 55Section 55749 judgments

The decision most relied on for cost of improvement is CIT v. Kasturi Estates (P.) Ltd. (62 ITR 578), cited in 25 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on cost of improvement

CIT v. Kasturi Estates (P.) Ltd.
62 ITR 578 · 1966 · High Court
25
citing judgments

Expenditure incurred to improve property before sale, such as dividing land into plots and laying roads, does not constitute an adventure in the nature of trade if the primary purpose is to obtain a better price for the property.

Arunachalam v. CIT
227 ITR 222 · 1997 · Supreme Court
22
citing judgments

Expenditure incurred by an assessee to discharge a mortgage created by a previous owner is an allowable deduction in computing capital gains, as it represents the cost of acquisition or perfecting an imperfect title. The assessee's payment to clear the encumbrance is not deductible for capital gains computation.

Commissioner of Income-tax v. Miss Piroja C. Patel
242 ITR 582 · 2000 · High Court
12
citing judgments

Compensation paid to hutment dwellers for vacating land is an allowable expenditure in computing capital gains, as it relates to the transfer of the asset. Such payments are considered a cost of acquisition or improvement under Section 48 read with Section 55 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Naozar Chenoy v. CIT
234 ITR 95 · 1998 · High Court
11
citing judgments

Expenditure incurred to pay tenants to vacate premises, which are the subject of a sale transaction, is allowable as a deduction in computing capital gains. This is because the expenditure is directly connected to and necessary for effecting the transfer of the property.

Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. v. DCIT, 313 ITR (AT) 263 (SB)
110 ITD 59 · 2008 · ITAT
10
citing judgments

The Assessing Officer cannot improve his assessment by adopting a new theory during reassessment proceedings.

Mrs. June Perrett v. Income-tax Officer
298 ITR 268 · 2008 · High Court
10
citing judgments

Payment made to secure an order of eviction and evict an unauthorized occupant can be treated as a cost of improvement.

Judgments citing cost of improvement

Shri Vasantrai Pursotam Kachalia, Rajkot vs. The ITO Ward 2 (1) (1), Rajkot

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

ITA 811/RJT/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot31 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकरअपील सं. /Ita No.811/Rjt/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2016-17 बनाम/ Vasantrai Pursotam Ito Ward 2(1)(1), Rajkot Vs Kachalia (Original - Ito Ward 2(1)(5), Rajkot) 210-Shrinathji Complex, Aaykar Bhavan, Race Course Road, Canal Road, Rajkot. Rajkot 360001 Rajkot 360002, Gujarat India "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Adspk1354Q (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""थ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Fenil H. Mehta, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 250

main grievance of the assessee in this appeal is that learned CIT(A) erred in making the disallowance on account of index cost of improvement at Rs.18,49,139/-, despite the fact that assessee had submitted during the assessment proceedings, all the documents and evidences to prove the claim ... index cost of improvement at Rs.18,49,139/-. 3. The relevant material facts, as culled out from the material on record, are as follows. Assessee, filed a return for assessment year (A.Υ.) 2016-17, declaring a total income of Rs.2,84,180/- and agricultural income of Rs.29

ACIT, Circle - 34(1), Delhi vs. Pankaj Kalra, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 855/DEL/2025[2017]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2025

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Ms Madhumita Royacit, Vs. Pankaj Kalra, Circle-34(1), A-28, Phase-1, Ashok Vihar, Delhi Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Amqpk6707N

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 40A(2)(b)

appeal is as to whether the Learned CITA was justified in deleting the addition of Rs 8,41,666/- towards granting deduction for cost of improvement in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. 4.1. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. During ... Assessee on 4-3-2014 for Rs 47,01,208/-. The Assessee claimed deduction on account of cost of acquisition and also cost of improvement of Rs 8,41,666/- in the return of income and disclosed capital loss of Rs 2,17,875/-. The Learned AO in the assessment

Sunita Bhardwaj, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 61(1), New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1431/DEL/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH (Vice President), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 147Section 151Section 234ASection 250Section 69A

order has observed that the assessee has claimed the costs of property at Rs. 42.00 lacs, registration charges of Rs.2,52000/- and cost of improvement of 15.00 lacs, however, no details whatsoever were filed in support of these claims either before the AO and before the Ld. CIT(A). Looking ... made by the assessee. The assessee is also directed to file all the necessary evidences with respect to the costs of acquisition and costs of improvement before the AO. With these directions, this ground of appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes. 17. The ground of appeal No.8

Sunita Bhardwaj, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 61(1), New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1430/DEL/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH (Vice President), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 147Section 151Section 234ASection 250Section 69A

order has observed that the assessee has claimed the costs of property at Rs. 42.00 lacs, registration charges of Rs.2,52000/- and cost of improvement of 15.00 lacs, however, no details whatsoever were filed in support of these claims either before the AO and before the Ld. CIT(A). Looking ... made by the assessee. The assessee is also directed to file all the necessary evidences with respect to the costs of acquisition and costs of improvement before the AO. With these directions, this ground of appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes. 17. The ground of appeal No.8

Sunita Bhardwaj, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 61(1), New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1429/DEL/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH (Vice President), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 147Section 151Section 234ASection 250Section 69A

order has observed that the assessee has claimed the costs of property at Rs. 42.00 lacs, registration charges of Rs.2,52000/- and cost of improvement of 15.00 lacs, however, no details whatsoever were filed in support of these claims either before the AO and before the Ld. CIT(A). Looking ... made by the assessee. The assessee is also directed to file all the necessary evidences with respect to the costs of acquisition and costs of improvement before the AO. With these directions, this ground of appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes. 17. The ground of appeal No.8

Ashok Kumar Khathuria, 105 Kranti Kriplani Nagar vs. CIT(A), Delhi

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 230/IND/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Indore24 Dec 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

Section 144Section 147Section 251Section 50C

erred to sustain the order passed by the Ld. A.O. by acting in a hurried manner without considering the Indexed Cost of Acquisition, Cost of Improvement, Deductions u/*s 54F of the Act, therefore, such an order is bad in law and order so passed

Indian City Properties Limited, Kolkata vs. Principal CIT, Kolkata - 2, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1051/KOL/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Dec 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member), SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: ShriSanjay Chatterjee, ARFor Respondent: Shri Guru Bhashyam, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 55A

land was determined at Rs.21.16 crore by the Registered Valuer of the assessee. After considering indexation on fair market value and indexed cost of improvement, taxable long term capital gain came to be Rs.5.99 crore, which was offered to tax. The fair market value

Vishwajeet Raja Patil, Mumbai vs. AO, Mumbai

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

ITA 4239/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Mr. Vishwajeet Raja Patil, Ao, Ward 8(1)(1), 53, Silver Beach, Off Cadel Road, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Dadar, Mumbai – 400 028 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan:Aadpp2899K (Appellant) : (Respondent) Mr. Bharat Raja Patil, Ao, Ward 8(1)(1), 214, Sweet Home, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. L.J. Road, Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 016 Pan:Aadpp2899K (Appellant) : (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay R. Singh &
Section 142(1)Section 148Section 250

Assessment order computing long term capital gain at Rs.2,25,21,780/- denying the claim of the assessee towards cost of acquisition/ cost of improvement, without appreciating the complete fact of the case. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the computation of long term capital gain at Rs.2

Bharat Raja Patil, Mumbai vs. AO, Mumbai

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

ITA 3700/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Mr. Vishwajeet Raja Patil, Ao, Ward 8(1)(1), 53, Silver Beach, Off Cadel Road, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Dadar, Mumbai – 400 028 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan:Aadpp2899K (Appellant) : (Respondent) Mr. Bharat Raja Patil, Ao, Ward 8(1)(1), 214, Sweet Home, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. L.J. Road, Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 016 Pan:Aadpp2899K (Appellant) : (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay R. Singh &
Section 142(1)Section 148Section 250

Assessment order computing long term capital gain at Rs.2,25,21,780/- denying the claim of the assessee towards cost of acquisition/ cost of improvement, without appreciating the complete fact of the case. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the computation of long term capital gain at Rs.2

Jugalkishore Banarasilal Saraf, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax- Central Circle-2(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 5059/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain& Hon’Ble Shri Om Prakash Kantjoint Commissioner Of Vs. Jugalkishore Income Tax (Osd), Central Banarasilal Saraf Circle 2(1), Mumbai 12-A, Saraf House, 802, 8Th Floor, Pratistha Hatkesh Co-Op. Hsg. Bhavan, C.G.O. Building, Society, N.M.Road, Maharashi Karve Road, J.V.P.D Scheme, Vile Mumbai- 400020 Parle, Mumbai- 400056 Pan/Gir No. Anrps9847D (Applicant) (Respondent) & Jugalkishore Banarasilal Vs. Joint Commissioner Of Saraf Income Tax (Osd), Central 12-A, Saraf House, Circle 2(1), Mumbai Hatkesh Co-Op. Hsg. Room No. 802, 8Th Floor, Society, N.M.Road, Pratistha Bhavan, Old Cgo J.V.P.D Scheme, Vile Annexe, Maharashi Karve Parle, Mumbai- 400056 Road, Mumbai- 400020 Pan/Gir No. Anrps9847D (Applicant) (Respondent) Shri. Himanshu Gandhi Revenue By Ms. Kavitha Kaushik,Sr.-Dr.

Section 132Section 250Section 694Section 69A

action? 4) Whether on the facts and circumstances of case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in restricting the addition to 25% of indexed cost of improvement, instead of 50% disallowed by the AO of Rs 6,12,198/, in the absence of any details/submission filed by the assessee during ... account of Interest income u/s 69A and ad-hoc disallowance of Rs. 50% of indexation of Cost of Improvement of Rs. 6,12,198/- was made. Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee preferred appeal and Ld. CIT(A) after considered the facts and preposition of law partly allowed

Jugalkishore Banarasilal Saraf, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax- Central Circle-2(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 5058/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain& Hon’Ble Shri Om Prakash Kantjoint Commissioner Of Vs. Jugalkishore Income Tax (Osd), Central Banarasilal Saraf Circle 2(1), Mumbai 12-A, Saraf House, 802, 8Th Floor, Pratistha Hatkesh Co-Op. Hsg. Bhavan, C.G.O. Building, Society, N.M.Road, Maharashi Karve Road, J.V.P.D Scheme, Vile Mumbai- 400020 Parle, Mumbai- 400056 Pan/Gir No. Anrps9847D (Applicant) (Respondent) & Jugalkishore Banarasilal Vs. Joint Commissioner Of Saraf Income Tax (Osd), Central 12-A, Saraf House, Circle 2(1), Mumbai Hatkesh Co-Op. Hsg. Room No. 802, 8Th Floor, Society, N.M.Road, Pratistha Bhavan, Old Cgo J.V.P.D Scheme, Vile Annexe, Maharashi Karve Parle, Mumbai- 400056 Road, Mumbai- 400020 Pan/Gir No. Anrps9847D (Applicant) (Respondent) Shri. Himanshu Gandhi Revenue By Ms. Kavitha Kaushik,Sr.-Dr.

Section 132Section 250Section 694Section 69A

action? 4) Whether on the facts and circumstances of case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in restricting the addition to 25% of indexed cost of improvement, instead of 50% disallowed by the AO of Rs 6,12,198/, in the absence of any details/submission filed by the assessee during ... account of Interest income u/s 69A and ad-hoc disallowance of Rs. 50% of indexation of Cost of Improvement of Rs. 6,12,198/- was made. Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee preferred appeal and Ld. CIT(A) after considered the facts and preposition of law partly allowed

Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD), Central Circle 2(1), Mumbai vs. Jugalkishore Banarasilal Saraf, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2431/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain& Hon’Ble Shri Om Prakash Kantjoint Commissioner Of Vs. Jugalkishore Income Tax (Osd), Central Banarasilal Saraf Circle 2(1), Mumbai 12-A, Saraf House, 802, 8Th Floor, Pratistha Hatkesh Co-Op. Hsg. Bhavan, C.G.O. Building, Society, N.M.Road, Maharashi Karve Road, J.V.P.D Scheme, Vile Mumbai- 400020 Parle, Mumbai- 400056 Pan/Gir No. Anrps9847D (Applicant) (Respondent) & Jugalkishore Banarasilal Vs. Joint Commissioner Of Saraf Income Tax (Osd), Central 12-A, Saraf House, Circle 2(1), Mumbai Hatkesh Co-Op. Hsg. Room No. 802, 8Th Floor, Society, N.M.Road, Pratistha Bhavan, Old Cgo J.V.P.D Scheme, Vile Annexe, Maharashi Karve Parle, Mumbai- 400056 Road, Mumbai- 400020 Pan/Gir No. Anrps9847D (Applicant) (Respondent) Shri. Himanshu Gandhi Revenue By Ms. Kavitha Kaushik,Sr.-Dr.

Section 132Section 250Section 694Section 69A

action? 4) Whether on the facts and circumstances of case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in restricting the addition to 25% of indexed cost of improvement, instead of 50% disallowed by the AO of Rs 6,12,198/, in the absence of any details/submission filed by the assessee during ... account of Interest income u/s 69A and ad-hoc disallowance of Rs. 50% of indexation of Cost of Improvement of Rs. 6,12,198/- was made. Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee preferred appeal and Ld. CIT(A) after considered the facts and preposition of law partly allowed

Yogendra Sharma, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Etah

In the result, the appeal preferred by assessee is allowed

ITA 408/AGR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Agra19 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2012-13 Yogendra Sharma, I-4695, 2Nd Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Floor, Gali No. 4-B, Balbir Nagar Ward 3(2), Etah. Extension, Shahdara, Delhi. Pan :Cgkps6492J (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 50C

declared nil income from capital gains on sale of property of Rs.10,00,000/- after claiming cost of acquisition of Rs.1,01,000/-, cost of improvement of Rs.8,95,000/- and expenditure on transfer of Rs.4,000/-. A separate notice was issued to the assessee to explain through documentary evidence ... determining the same as under : Full Value of consideration (as per section 50C) Rs.8,40,000/- Cost of acquisition Rs.1,07,200/- Cost of improvement Rs.5,00,000/- Short term capital gains Rs.2,32,800/- 4. Aggrieved with the above order, assessee preferred an appeal before learned CIT(Appeals

Income Tax Officer, Delhi vs. Amira Apparels Ltd, Delhi

In the result, this appeal is partly allowed

ITA 4473/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shrimahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shrisanjay Awasthiआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.4473/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2017-18 बनाम Income Tax Officer, Amira Apparels Ltd. Room No.375, Central Revenue Building, Vs. 1/16, East Patel Nagar, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No.Aaaca2992A अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 139(1)Section 250

acquisition from 31.03.1993. The Ld. AO has recorded that the 1 assessee did not submit any document supporting the cost of acquisition or cost of improvement of the property. The Ld. AO has given a finding that the benefit of indexation cannot be allowed for any depreciable asset, being

Income Tax Officer Ward 2(4), Pune, Swargate vs. Mangal Balasaheb Gole, Kothrud

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

ITA 1209/PUN/2025[2021-22]Status: HeardITAT Pune15 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2021-22 Ito, Ward 2(4), Pune Mangal Balasaheb Gole Vs. Pirangut, Kothrud, S.O Pune City, Pune – 411038 Affpg6617R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kishor B Phadke Department By : Shri Rajesh Gawali, Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing : 11-12-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 15-12-2025 O R D E R Per R.K. Panda, Vp:

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Gawali, Addl.CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 48Section 54B

assessee u/s 54B of the Act was certified. However, the Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the cost of acquisition and cost of improvement in respect of certain blocks of land and denied the cost of acquisition of Rs.3,05,76,548/- in absence of any satisfactory explanation given before ... verified the agricultural usage of land for the purpose of Section 54B and had not examined or verified the cost of acquisition or cost of improvement? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-12, Pune vs. Yantrik Engineering Private Limited, Pune

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

ITA 1283/PUN/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1283/Pun/2023 Assessment Year : 2020-21

For Respondent: Appellant by Shri Amit Bobde
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37Section 37(1)(va)Section 43B

assessee without Registering the Agreements, thereby leading to the conclusion that the transactions which the assessee had claimed in support of cost of improvement are sham transactions, with an intention to inflate cost of the property in order to reduce tax liability by disclosing low capital gain. Further, no opportunity

Avnish Kumar, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-5(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 919/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. G. Saratha, SR-DR

assessee had furnished income from Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) at Rs.62,42,220/- after claiming cost of acquisition with indexation and cost of improvement with indexation of Rs.13,27,57,780/-. The Assessing Officer called upon the assessee to furnish details of cost of improvement with indexation of Rs.4 ... Rs.7,90,00,000/- and completed the house to make it habitable by spending Rs.3,88,87,592/- on which he claimed cost of improvement with indexation of Rs.4,05,04,447/-. The assessee has furnished relevant details of expenditure incurred for completion of house to convert semi constructed house

Jhansi Lakshmi Ramanadham, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-8(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 886/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.886/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16) Smt. Jhansi Lakshmi Vs. Income Tax Officer Ramanadham Ward 8 (1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Acbpr3566K (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate S. Sandhya राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Arun Kumar, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 04/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 10/12/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Smt. Jhansi Lakshmi Ramanadham, (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 30.05.2024 For The A.Y 2015-16. 2. At The Outset, It Is Seen That There Is A Delay Of 292 Days In Filing The Present Appeal Before This Tribunal. The Assessee Has Filed An Affidavit Explaining The Reasons For The Delay. The Learned Authorized Representative (“Ld. Ar”) Submitted That The Assessee Is Page 1 Of 12

For Appellant: Advocate S. SandhyaFor Respondent: : Shri Arun Kumar, Sr. DR

gain. In her computation, the assessee claimed selling expenses of Rs.14,54,022/-, indexed cost of acquisition of Rs.10,49,953/- and indexed cost of improvement amounting to Rs.3,04,99,447/-. She thus worked out her share of capital gain at Rs.1,47,98,631/-. Out of this ... observed that no satisfactory evidence had been produced in respect of the selling expenses claimed at Rs.14,54,022/-, nor for the indexed cost of improvement claimed at Rs.3,04,99,447/-. The Ld. AO also recorded that against the deduction under section 54 of the Act amounting to Rs.98

ACIT., Circle-5(1), Hyderabad vs. Pragnapur Developers Private Limited, Hyderabad

Accordingly, the grounds Nos. 1 to 12 are partly allowed

ITA 441/HYD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Us:

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

impugned order of the CIT(Appeals) on the following grounds of appeal before us: “1. The learned CIT(A) erred in allowing the cost of improvement at Rs. 11.25 crores when the assessee himself has made a contradictory claim in the ITR with reference to various financial years of improvement ... assessee based on self-serving agreements entered into by the assessee with various concerns without insisting on actual payments made towards cost of improvement for various FYs as per ITR for AY 2022-23. 6. Any other ground that may be urged at the time of appeal hearing.” 2. Succinctly

Madan Lal Bhaskar, Faridabad vs. ITO Ward 1(3), Faridabad

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4416/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shrimahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shrisanjay Awasthiआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.4416/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 बनाम Madan Lal Bhaskar, Income Tax Officer, Jeevan Nagar, Sikka Enterprises, Vs. Ward 1(3), Faridabad, Haryana. Faridabad. Pan No.Aejpb6367A अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 221Section 250

erred both on fact and in law, in confirming the disallowance of Rs.71,03,714/- made by the AO on account of indexed cost of improvement claimed by the assessee while computing the income under the head Long Term Capital Gain. 7. (i) On the facts and circumstances