https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=770887 The ITAT Delhi allowed the assessee's appeal on two grounds. First, the tribunal held that the cost of improvement claimed for capital gains computation was properly substantiated through detailed bills showing expenses integral to the furnished house, making the lower authorities' disallowance unsustainable in law. Second, regarding cash deposits during demonetization in a joint account, the tribunal found the same amount was already taxed in the husband's hands for A.Y. 2017-18, and taxing it again would constitute impermissible double taxation. Both additions were deleted. en-us Wed, 30 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 16 May 2025 10:19:23 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=770887 The ITAT Delhi allowed the assessee's appeal on two grounds. First, the tribunal held that the cost of improvement claimed for capital gains computation was properly substantiated through detailed bills showing expenses integral to the furnished house, making the lower authorities' disallowance unsustainable in law. Second, regarding cash deposits during demonetization in a joint account, the tribunal found the same amount was already taxed in the husband's hands for A.Y. 2017-18, and taxing it again would constitute impermissible double taxation. Both additions were deleted. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 30 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=770887