2025 (10) TMI 1298

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Income-tax Act, 1961 [the Act] dated 15.12.2018 by the ITO, Ward 5[2][1], Bangalore [ld. AO] was dismissed. 2. The only issue involved in this appeal is with respect to the addition of Rs. 7,44,000 being the commission & brokerage paid by assessee for sale of property taxed u/s. 69C of the Act and further not allowing the cost of improvement of Rs. 2,45,141 while computing the capital gain on the sale of property. 3. The brief facts of the case show that assessee is an individual who filed his return of income (revised return) on 2.1.2018 at a total income of Rs. 12,83,890. The return was picked up for scrutiny for verification of deduction claimed from capital gain, investment in immovable property. During the year the assessee has ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e ld. AO. 6. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal. The ld. AR, Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate was heard from the side of the assessee and Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Advocate, Standing Counsel for the Revenue was also heard, who supported the orders of the ld. lower authorities. 7. I have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the orders of the ld. lower authorities. The facts clearly show that assessee has sold a property at Rs. 3.24 crores. The assessee has claimed the cost of improvement of Rs. 65,62,000. The ld. AO has accepted the major portion of cost of improvement, however, has not accepted that assessee could have spent Rs. 2,45,141 of 21 bills as in the bill the name of the appellant was not mentioned. I find that th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he date of payment, merely that the name in the invoices of the assessee does not appear, I do not find it to uphold the order of the ld. AO in not allowing the cost of improvement of Rs. 2,45,141. 8. The second issue is with respect to commission & brokerage paid of Rs. 7,44,000. The facts show that assessee has claimed to have paid brokerage as selling expenses to four different parties of Rs. 1,81,000 each. The assessee supported the same by filing their confirmation, who confirmed that they have rendered services for sale of this property and also received the brokerage. The ld. AO issued notice u/s. 133(6) of the Act, disallowed the same holding that he parties have furnished their return of income after the issue of show cause noti....