<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2024 (6) TMI 1352 - ITAT AMRITSAR</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=754745</link>
    <description>The ITAT Amritsar allowed the assessee&#039;s appeal regarding re-computation of long term capital gain. The tribunal held that expenditure incurred for constructing a concrete bridge on a rivulet in front of the shop constituted allowable cost of improvement. The CIT(A) had erroneously disallowed this expenditure, failing to appreciate that the bridge construction was capital expenditure essential for providing road access and improving accessibility to enhance footfall and capital value. The tribunal found the expenditure was supported by site plans and photographs, with no controverting evidence from revenue authorities. The addition was deleted, treating the rivulet construction cost as legitimate cost of improvement for capital gains computation.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 09 Feb 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 28 Jun 2024 17:17:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=758124" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (6) TMI 1352 - ITAT AMRITSAR</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=754745</link>
      <description>The ITAT Amritsar allowed the assessee&#039;s appeal regarding re-computation of long term capital gain. The tribunal held that expenditure incurred for constructing a concrete bridge on a rivulet in front of the shop constituted allowable cost of improvement. The CIT(A) had erroneously disallowed this expenditure, failing to appreciate that the bridge construction was capital expenditure essential for providing road access and improving accessibility to enhance footfall and capital value. The tribunal found the expenditure was supported by site plans and photographs, with no controverting evidence from revenue authorities. The addition was deleted, treating the rivulet construction cost as legitimate cost of improvement for capital gains computation.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 09 Feb 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=754745</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>