TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Assessee fails to prove cost of improvement claims for LTCG computation without adequate evidence</h1> <h3>Arun Tulshidas Kharat Versus The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7, Pune.</h3> Arun Tulshidas Kharat Versus The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7, Pune. - TMI Issues:1. Appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) for A.Y. 2014-15 under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.2. Disallowance of claimed Index Cost of Improvement and Interest Expenditure by the Assessing Officer.3. Failure to provide necessary documentary evidence for claiming Cost of Improvement.Analysis:1. The appeal was filed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) for A.Y. 2014-15 under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appellant challenged the order on various grounds, including the consideration of submissions, disallowance of claimed amounts, and delay in filing the appeal.2. The Assessing Officer disallowed the claimed Index Cost of Improvement and Interest Expenditure. The appellant had shown income from Long Term Capital Gain and claimed deductions for Index Cost of Acquisition and Improvement. The Assessing Officer disallowed a portion of the claimed amount, leading to the appeal.3. The appellant failed to provide necessary documentary evidence to support the claimed Cost of Improvement. Bills submitted were mainly in the name of an independent entity, not the appellant. The Tribunal noted that the bills in the name of the entity could not be considered as proof of expenditure incurred by the appellant for improvement of the flat. The declaration provided by the entity was deemed self-serving and lacked independent evidence to support the claim.4. The Tribunal upheld the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer for the Cost of Improvement, as the appellant failed to provide sufficient evidence. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, stating that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) had considered the submissions, and there was no merit in the appellant's plea. The decision was pronounced in open court on 12th December 2023.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
