{"id":61383,"date":"2026-06-27T12:00:51","date_gmt":"2026-06-27T06:30:51","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/vishnukumar-gokalchand-gupta-v-acit-2025-215-itd-453-mum-trib\/"},"modified":"2026-06-27T12:00:51","modified_gmt":"2026-06-27T06:30:51","slug":"vishnukumar-gokalchand-gupta-v-acit-2025-215-itd-453-mum-trib","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/vishnukumar-gokalchand-gupta-v-acit-2025-215-itd-453-mum-trib\/","title":{"rendered":"Vishnukumar Gokalchand Gupta. v. ACIT (2025) 215 ITD 453 (Mum) (Trib.)"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><strong>\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Assessee sold an immovable property and claimed deduction for the cost of acquisition and the cost of improvement in computing long-term capital gains. For the cost of improvement, assessee claimed expenditure incurred by him on the first-floor construction and interiors and expenditure incurred by his brother on the second-floor construction and interiors. Assessing Officer disallowed the claim, holding that property was a completed house when purchased and that repair\/renovation could not be treated as the cost of improvement. CIT(A) affirmed the order of the Assessing Officer. Tribunal held that as per section 49(1), the cost of acquisition of the asset shall be deemed to be the cost for which the previous owner of the property acquired it, as increased by the cost of any improvement of assets incurred or borne by the previous owner of the assessee. Since additional evidence furnished by the assessee would have a crucial bearing in determining the issue in dispute, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. (AY. 2016-17)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p> S. 48: Capital gains-Mode of  Computation-Cost of improvement-Previous owner-Cost of acquisition-cost of construction and interiors-Additional evidence-Matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. [S.49(1)]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_feature_clip_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-61383","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-income-tax-act"],"acf":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p9S2Rw-fY3","jetpack-related-posts":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/61383","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=61383"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/61383\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":61384,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/61383\/revisions\/61384"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=61383"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=61383"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=61383"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}