← 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

Seelamsetty Balaji, Vijayawada vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Vijayawada

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 508/VIZ/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam05 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 44A

Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified in sustaining the addition of Rs.7,62,655 made by the assessing officer towards disallowance of indexed cost of improvement. 3. Any other grounds may be urged at the time of hearing.” Page. No 3 LT.A.No.508/VIZ/2025 Seelamsetty Balaji == 6. Assessee also filed

Vivek Industries, Vijayawada vs. ITO, Ward-2(3), Vijayawada

ITA 133/VIZ/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam05 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Balakrishnan S.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.133/Viz/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2018-19) Vivek Industries, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 8-1, Kamayyathopu Kanuru, Ward-2(3), Vijayawada. Vijayawada. Pan: Aanfm5215A (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Gvn Hari, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Shri Badicala Yadagiri, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of 20/11/2025 Hearing: घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 05/12/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri GVN Hari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Badicala Yadagiri, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 150Section 54DSection 54F

gains of Rs. 5.88 crores (approx.) on the sale of the subject property had raised claim for deductions, viz., cost of acquisition (indexed), cost of improvement (indexed), and expenses related to transfer. Further, the AO observed that the assessee firm had failed to place on record any documentary evidence which ... perusal of the computation of income of the members of the AOP (partners of the firm), revealed that the deduction for the cost of improvement was related to building. The AO was of the view that the aforesaid claim for deduction of cost of improvement did not merit acceptance

Gavini Giridhara Murari, Tirupati vs. ITO., Ward-1(1), Tirupati

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

ITA 709/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: N ON E
Section 147Section 148Section 69A

First Appellate Authority is not justified in confirming the addition under capital gains of Rs.49,23,000/- without deducting cost of acquisition and cost of improvement. 3. The Learned First Appellate Authority is not justified in confirming the addition under capital gains of Rs.9,60,000/- where the property sold

Kirit Babubhai Jhaveri, Surat vs. ACIT, Circle-2(2), Surat

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes, subject to the of cost of Rs

ITA 52/SRT/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat03 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.52/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2015-16 (Hybrid Hearing) Kirit Babubhai Jhaveri, Vs. Acit, 22, Zaveri Bungalow, Opp – Circle – 2(2), Meghna Park, City Light Road, Surat Surat – 395007 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aabpz4942P (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 54Section 54B

appeal are as under: “(1) The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi has erred in disallowing Rs.3,55,200/- being the indexed cost of improvement from the sale proceeds of land situated at Dumas. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the said expenses be allowed as cost ... property 04.07.2014 Assessee’s share in total sale Rs.1,64,77,050/- consideration Less: Indexed cost of acquisition Rs.31,96,897/- claimed Cost of improvement claimed Rs.3,55,200/- Exemption claimed Rs.1,13,14,829/- Capital gain shown in ROI Rs.16,10,124/- ITA No.52/SRT/2024/AY 2015-16 Kirit Babubhai Jhaveri

Zulekha Haji Attarwala, Mumbai vs. ITO 20(2)(1), Lalbaug

In the result, the grounds of appeal and the appeal filed by the

ITA 4978/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C. V. Bhadang & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary, (Sr. DR)
Section 143(3)Section 2(14)Section 234Section 270ASection 54Section 56(2)(x)

computation of LTCG, it was seen that the assessee had claimed the indexed cost of acquisition at Rs.66,57,485/- and indexed cost of improvement at Rs.59,89,652/- in respect of the property sold during the year resulting in net LTCG at Rs.48,52,863/-. The assessee had also ... earned Short Term Capital Gain(STCG) which was worked out at Rs.85,56,250/-. Thus, the assessee was neither eligible for claiming cost of improvement nor the deduction u/s.54 of the Act. In response, the assessee submitted she had purchased flat No.5201-B & 5301-B in F.Y-2010-11 vide allotment letter dated

Tiruchengode Sakthi Spinners Pvt. Ltd., Namakkal vs. ITO, Ward-1, Tiruchengode

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

ITA 2417/CHNY/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Dec 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2417/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2023-24 Tiruchengode Sakthi Spinners Private Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Limited, 67/3B, Melkallupalayam B.O., Ward 1, Namakkal 637 403. Tiruchengode. [Pan:Aaact7666A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate (Erode) ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. M. Subashri, Addl. Cit (Virtual) सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 02.12.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 02.12.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30.06.2025 Passed By The Addl/Jcit(A)-1, Noida, For The Assessment Year 2023-24. 2. Besides Challenging The Order Of The First Appellate Authority On Merits, The Assessee Vide Ground No. 5 Challenged Legal Issue That The First Appellate Authority Has Exceeded The Powers As Contemplated In Section 251(1A) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate (Erode)For Respondent: Ms. M. Subashri, Addl. CIT (Virtual)
Section 143(1)Section 251Section 48

with a direction to take cognisance of the submissions made by the assessee and verify its claims with regard to the claim of cost of improvement. 4. The ld. AR Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate drew our attention to the provisions of section 251(1A) of the Act and submits that ... impugned order, it is noted that the Addl/JCIT(A) observed that the assessee omitted to 3 I.T.A. No.2417/Chny/25 have mentioned the cost of improvement in the relevant schedule and therefore, directed the Assessing Officer to verify the same and to allow the same, if it is allowable deduction. Before

Laxman Kanaiyalal Dharmani, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 23(2)(6), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5675/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Gunjan Kakkad, AR
Section 250Section 56(2)(x)

purpose of section 48 of the Act, cost of acquisition of the property is taken at (a) cost of purchase plus cost of improvement and (b) expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively in connection with such transfer. In the case of Appellant, the flat has been acquired long back in 2001i.e ... long term capital asset. Therefore, cost of purchase and cost of improvement will be enhanced by way of indexation. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the consideration value born by the Appellant against allotment of the new flat (area in new flat given in lieu of surrender of old flat

Gireesh Chandra, Etah vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward 3(1), Etah

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

ITA 264/AGR/2025[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Agra26 Nov 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2011-12

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 250Section 54F

were issued and served upon the assessee. Assessee was required to furnish the evidences regarding his claim of cost of acquisition, cost of improvement and deduction claimed u/s. 54F of the Act, but for no avail. Therefore, learned Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s. 147/143 ... erred in law and on facts in making the Impugned addition of Rs. 5,09,077 arbitrary on account of disallowing the cost of improvement incurred by the appellant. 12. That the learned Authorities has erred in law and on facts in wrongly charging interest u/s 234A

Pothina Satyanarayana, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(5), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 568/VIZ/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam26 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Balakrishnan S.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.568/Viz/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Pothina Satyanarayana, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Visakhapatnam. Ward-2(5), Pan: Ahdpp1312N Visakhapatnam. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By: Sri Gvn Hari, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of 19/11/2025 Hearing: घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 26/11/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, Jm : The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Dated 10/07/2025, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (For Short, “Ao”) Under Section 147 R.W.S 144 R.W.S 144B Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “Act”), Dated 12/02/2024 For The Assessment Year 2018-19. The 2 Pothina Satyanarayana Vs. Ito

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 151ASection 54F

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified in sustaining addition of Rs.34,40,000 made by the Assessing officer towards disallowance of cost of improvement. 5. Any other ground that may be urged at the time of appeal hearing.” 2. Succinctly stated, the AO based on information that

Jatninder Singh Taneja, Delhi vs. ACIT Circle 30(1), New Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 6554/DEL/2025[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraassessment Year: 2006-07

Section 143(3)Section 48

allow him all benefit of expenditure incurred on transfer as well as under the latter head of cost of acquisition and cost of improvement thereto as per law in entirety, in very terms. 4. This assessee’s appeal is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 26th November

Mukut Behari Lal Bhargava, Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Circle(2)1, Gurgaon

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

ITA 2012/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwalmukut Behari Lal Bhargava, Acit, Lcg 05, 04B Laburnum Complex, Circle-2(1), 1 4Th Floor, Sushant Lok 1, Vs. Gurgaon. Block-A, Sector-28 Haryana-122009. Pan-Adipb9356P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Department By Shri Pradumna Kumar Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 03.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26.11.2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A) In Short] In Appeal No. Cit(A), Gurugaon-1/10738/2018-19 Dated 05.02.2025 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act, In Short) For Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Filed Its Return Of Income Declaring Total Income Of Rs.1,20,41,040/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Limited Scrutiny & During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, The Assessing Officer Has Issued Various Notices Which Were Replied By The Assessee. Mukut Behari Lal Bhargava Vs. Acit 3. Thereafter, The Assessment Order Was Passed At A Total Income Of Rs.1,79,36,182/- By Making Disallowance On Account Of Expenses Claimed On Costs Of Improvement Of Capital Asset, Disallowance Of Carry Forward Of Short Term Capital Gains & Long Term Capital Loss & Also Denied The Deduction Claimed U/S 80G Of The Act.

Section 250Section 271Section 80G

assessment order was passed at a total income of Rs.1,79,36,182/- by making disallowance on account of expenses claimed on costs of improvement of capital asset, disallowance of carry forward of short term capital gains and long term capital loss and also denied the deduction claimed ... perused the material available on record. 6. In Ground of appeal No. 1 assessee has challenged the denial of deduction claimed towards indexed cost of improvement from the computation of long terms capital gains arising out of the sale of house property. From the perusal of appellate order

Sigma Paradise, Ghaziabad vs. DCIT, Ward 2(2)(1), Ghaziabad

The appeal is allowed

ITA 823/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2013-14 Sigma Paradise, Vs Dcit, Km-78, Kavi Nagar, Ward 2(2)(1), Ghaziabad, Ghaziabad. Uttar Pradesh – 201 002. Pan:Aazfs9643L (Appellants) (Respondents) Assessee By : Shri Rajiv Khandelwal, Ca; & Shri Gagan R. Khandelwal & Shri Jaind Kumar Jaiswal, Advocates Revenue By : Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 18.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.11.2025

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal, CA; &For Respondent: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 4Section 50CSection 6

claim of capital gain was allowed as under: Sale price of land: Rs. 40000000/- Less: Indexed cost of purchase Rs. 16177171/- Less: Indexed cost of improvement Rs. 24724279/- (Improvement expenses disallowed Rs. 1701685/-) Expenses on Transfer Rs. 399999/- Net Capital Gain Rs. 401338/- 3. The case of assesse was reopened ... sought for reopening. 8. Admittedly, during assessment proceedings, all relevant documents like purchase bill, sale bill, vouchers related to expenses on cost of improvement were filed to the satisfaction of the AO. The AO examined all the documents and examined the computation of capital gains and has passed the assessment

Vikas Aggarwal, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-45(8), Delhi

In the result, the Appeal of the Appellant is partly allowed for

ITA 4705/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwalvikas Aggarwal Vs Ito C-23, Lawrence Road Ward-45(8) Industrial Area, New Delhi Keshavpuram, New Delhi Pan: Aenpa7838P Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. Vaibhav Aggarwal, Ca Revenue By Sh. Piyushtripathi, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 25/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26/11/2025 Order

Section 143(3)Section 68

contended that, the A.O. made addition of Long Term Capital Gain to the tune of Rs. 23,70,534/- without considering the ‘cost of improvement’ incurred on the property sold while calculating the capital gain and other relevant material and facts. The Ld. Counsel also produced an affidavit ... Assessee before us in support of the claim of cost of improvement. Thus, submitted that the A.O. committed error in making the addition of Long Term Capital Gain which has been erroneously sustained by the Ld. CIT(A). Thus, sought for allowing the Ground No. 2. 7. Per contra

Azim Kassam Boblai, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 41(1)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 4391/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Azim Kassam Boblai Vs. Ito, Ward 41(1)(3), A/204, Roshni Mahal, Mumbai Mumbai Puna Road Thane, Kautilya Bhawan, C41- Diwa B.O, Nagaon, Thane, 43, Avenue 3, Near Mumbai- 400612 Videsh Bhavan, G Block Bkc, Gilban Area, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai- 400051 Pan/Gir No. Aetpb414J (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 250

facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the disallowance of cost of improvement amounting to 14,12,500 which was claimed as deduction while computing the long-term capital gains. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case

Mandhatasinhji Manoharsinhji Jadeja, Mumbai vs. The Circle 19(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 5579/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Smt. Renu Jauhri, Am Mandhatasinhji M. Jadeja Circle 19(1), Mumbai 12, Floor-5, 51 – Narendra Bhuvan, Vs. Cumballa Hill, Mumbai.

For Appellant: Shri Viraj Mehta, CA (Virtually appear)For Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT DR
Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

after making additions of Rs. 91,13,000/- u/s 68 of the Act and Rs. 44,69,860/- by way of excess cost of improvement. 4. Aggrieved the assessee was in appeal before the first appellate authority, challenging the assessment order. 5. The ld. CIT(A) vide an ex parte

Ram Niranjan Banka, Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T., Circle - 40, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 752/KOL/2025[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Nov 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Ram Niranjan Banka Acit, Circle-40 1, Surti Bagan Street, Jorasanko, 3, Govt. Place (West), Vs. Kolkata-700073, West Bengal Kolkata-700001, West Bengal (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aedpb5273P Assessee By : Shri Manish Tiwari, Ar Revenue By : Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, Dr Date Of Hearing: 14.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.11.2025

For Appellant: Shri Manish Tiwari, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, DR
Section 54(1)(ii)

long term capital asset and indexed cost thereof also allowed in computation of short term capital gain in the assessment order) and includes cost of improvement, being proportionate cost of construction related to said flat. The AO thus erred in computing profit on sale of said 1st Floor flat

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Bellary vs. M/S Virgo Properties Private Limited, Chennai

ITA 1181/BANG/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri.Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

Panaji however has erred in not observing the fact that the assessee company has not furnished any proofs/documents/details for cost of improvement claimed Rs.2,38,49,698/- & Rs.10,31,416/- for the F.Y: 2011-12 and 2012-13 respectively either at the time of assessment proceedings ... Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) was correct in estimating the cost of improvement claimed Rs.2,38,49,698/- & Rs.10,31,416/- for the F.Y: 2011-12 and 2012-13 respectively on the basis of additional evidence filed

Navneet Garg, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 43(7), Delhi

In the result Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed in the above terms

ITA 1801/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Krinwant Sahayasstt. Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, Advocate, CA Uma UpadhyayFor Respondent: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 115Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 143Section 68

said disallowance has been confirmed rejecting the submissions and explanations along with the evidences brought on record by the assessee to justify the cost of improvement claimed by the assessee.” 8. Brief facts of this issue are that the Assessee while computing capital gains arising out of sale of property

Lalmuni Devi, Patna vs. ITO, Patna

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

ITA 18/PAT/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Patna18 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 133(6)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 234BSection 250Section 48Section 50CSection 55

Lalmuni Devi. FMV as on 01-04-2001, which comes Rs. 3050000. And at the same time indexation was not allowed. 3. Cost of improvement. I incurred Rs. 200000 for sand filling, boundary wall etc. But my cost of improvement amount was completely ignored. 4. Section 234A. I filed ... base year should be 3250000 and indexed cost of land as on F.Y. 2012-13 Rs. 6500000 3. NIL cost of improvement taken by A.O. but as per valuation report cost of improvement taken Rs 200000. 4. As per JDA the projects should complete in all respect within 2 years

Chimanbhai Bhikhabhai Patel, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 1(3)(6), Surat

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

ITA 1044/SRT/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat17 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1044/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-15 (Hybrid Hearing) Chimanbhai Bhikhabhai Patel Income Tax Officer , Ward-1(3)(6), बनाम/ S. No.3/2, Koliwad, Adajan Income-Tax Office, Anavil Business Vs. Gam, Adajan, Surat-395 009 Centre, Adajan Hazira Road, Surat-395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Afypp 4446 E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Appellant By Shri Sapnesh R Sheth, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से /Respondent By Ms. Namita Patel, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 28/08/2025 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 17/11/2025

Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 69

Appeals), NFAC has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Office in not giving deduction towards indexed cost of acquisition and indexed cost of improvement while calculating income from long-term capital gain. 6. It is therefore prayed that the above additions made by Assessing Officer and confirmed