TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (7) TMI 187
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....4B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') by the Assessment Unit, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the 'AO') pertaining to Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2022-23. 2. Grounds of appeal filed by the Assessee are reproduced as under: "1. That the Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in upholding the disallowance of the Appellant's claim of indexed cost of acquisition and indexed cost of improvement amounting to Rs. 3,87,12,877/-, ignoring material evidence, sale deed, payment records, loan documents, cost sheets and submissions placed on record 2. That the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) are based on misreading of records and on presumption rather than analysis of evidence, thereby rendering the order perverse. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aw. 5. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law upholding the AO's in inconsistent and arbitrary approach of granting indexation only for FY 2010-11 while denying indexation for FYs 2011-12 and 2012-13, despite identical evidence and submissions, thereby rendering the finding perverse and unsustainable. 6. That the findings of the Ld. Rs. 0 CIT(A) in para 5.9 are wholly perverse, being based on assumptions and conjectures. rather than evidence. The Ld. CIT(A) has incorrectly alleged that the Appellant's 50% share in the property "has not been established", despite the fact that the registered conveyance deed clearly records the names of the Appellant and her spouse as joint purchasers without any specification of unequal s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....source of funds; hence, the observation of the Ld. CIT(A) is not only factually irrelevant but reflects a fundamental misapplication of Section 48, rendering the finding bad in law and liable to be deleted. 8. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the AO's disallowance of interest paid on borrowed capital as part of the cost of acquisition under Section 48, despite the fact that the statutory bar (Proviso to Section 48 inserted by Finance Act 2023) is expressly prospective from 01.04.2024 and cannot apply to AY 2022-23 9. That the Ld. CIT(A) completely ignored binding judicial precedents which categorically hold that interest is allowable as cost of acquisition for years prior to AY 2024-25. 10. That the impu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....wn by the assessee. The assessee had purchased a property in DLF Phase-V, Gurugram, jointly with her husband for a consideration of Rs. 3,81,81,134/-, which was paid in instalments during F.Ys. 2010-11 to 2012- 13. The property was subsequently sold on 28.06.2021 for total consideration of Rs. 4,80,00,000/- in which assessee's share of Rs. 2,40,00,000/- was shown in the return against which, after reducing indexed cost of acquisition, LTCL of Rs. 2,94,41,694/- was claimed. The AO proposed to disallow cost of improvement of Rs. 3,87,12,877/- and reworked the Long -Term Capital Gain (LTCG) at Rs. 92,71,183/- 4.1 Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A), who dismissed the same vide order dated 13.09.2025. Further aggrie....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....llant computed Long-Term Capital Loss of Rs. 2,94,41,694/- after claiming indexed cost of acquisition comprising a. instalments paid towards acquisition of the property during FYs 2010-11 to 2012-13 and b. interest paid on loans utilised for acquisition of the property. 5. Owing to limitations in the return utility, the amounts representing indexed cost of acquisition paid over different financial years and indexed cost of interest on loans were reflected under the column captioned "construction cost". However, the said amounts represented instalments paid towards acquisition of the property and not expenditure incurred on construction. The complete breakup of the payments and corresponding indexation was furnishe....