Business loss mismatch and encroacher compensation claims accepted as cost of improvement for capital gains

A mere mismatch between the net loss in the profit and loss account and the business loss after depreciation adjustments did not justify disallowance where no adverse finding was recorded on the genuineness of the claim, so the business loss was deleted. Compensation paid to remove encroachers and secure vacant possession of land was treated as allowable cost of improvement for long-term capital gains because the payments, agreements and banking records sufficiently supported the expenditure. The additions were deleted and the assessee's appeal succeeded in full.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the disallowance of the assessee's claimed business loss on the ground of a mismatch in the figures was sustainable; (ii) Whether compensation paid to remove encroachers from the land constituted allowable cost of improvement for computing long-term capital gains.

Issue (i): Whether the disallowance of the assessee's claimed business loss on the ground of a mismatch in the figures was sustainable.

Analysis: The discrepancy noticed by the lower authorities was found to be only between the net loss in the profit and loss account and the total business loss computed after depreciation adjustments. No adverse finding was recorded against the genuineness of the loss claim, and the issue had not formed part of the substantive scrutiny on merits.

Conclusion: The disallowance of business loss was not justified and was deleted in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether compensation paid to remove encroachers from the land constituted allowable cost of improvement for computing long-term capital gains.

Analysis: The land was admitted to have been encroached upon, the assessee had pursued the matter before multiple authorities over a long period, and agreements as well as payment details to the encroachers were produced. The lower authorities rejected the claim mainly for want of complete supporting particulars, but the record showed that the payments were examined, most were made through banking channels, and the fact of compensation having been paid for vacant possession was not disputed. The evidentiary record was found sufficient to establish the expenditure as part of the cost of improvement for capital gains purposes.

Conclusion: The claim for cost of improvement was allowed and the addition was deleted in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded in full and the additions made by the lower authorities did not survive.

Ratio Decidendi: An expenditure incurred to secure vacant possession of encroached property, when supported by credible evidence and payment details, is allowable as cost of improvement in computing long-term capital gains, and a mere clerical mismatch in loss computation cannot sustain disallowance absent any adverse finding on the genuineness of the claim.

---