https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=15456 Whether amounts paid by an assessee and co-owners to hutment dwellers to secure vacation of land constituted "cost of improvement" deductible in computing capital gains under s. 48 read with s. 55 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was the dominant issue. The HC held that where delivery of vacant possession to a public authority was a condition precedent under the acquisition arrangement, and eviction of hutment dwellers enhanced the land's value, the expenditure was incurred to improve the capital asset and fell within s. 48(ii). Relying on binding HC precedents on enhancement of value as improvement, the Court treated the payments as allowable cost of improvement; the question was answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. en-us Mon, 08 Mar 1999 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 18 Dec 2025 20:21:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=15456 Whether amounts paid by an assessee and co-owners to hutment dwellers to secure vacation of land constituted "cost of improvement" deductible in computing capital gains under s. 48 read with s. 55 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was the dominant issue. The HC held that where delivery of vacant possession to a public authority was a condition precedent under the acquisition arrangement, and eviction of hutment dwellers enhanced the land's value, the expenditure was incurred to improve the capital asset and fell within s. 48(ii). Relying on binding HC precedents on enhancement of value as improvement, the Court treated the payments as allowable cost of improvement; the question was answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 08 Mar 1999 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=15456