VENKATRAMAN JAYASHREE PRIYADHARSHINI,CHENNAI V. ACIT, NCC-3, CHENNAI

ITA 64/CHNY/2025

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Venkatraman Jayashree Priyadharshini against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), which pertained to the assessment year 2015-16. The primary contention was regarding the computation of long-term capital gains and the allowable deductions under section 54 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee challenged the quantum addition sustained by the CIT(A) and sought relief for additional expenditures incurred on interior work and incidental levies for a new residential property. The Tribunal considered precedents and the valuation report submitted, which supported the assessee's claims for additional deductions.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 716745 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-08-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 10-01-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Sapna Hemanshu Shah v. DCIT, Y. Manjula Reddy v. ITO
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R.ANITA
• Assessee Lawyers: Y. SRIDHAR; F
• Keywords: Cost of acquisition; Capital Gains; Valuation report
• Section: 54; 54F

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’सी’ Ɋायपीठ, चेɄई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI ŵी एस.एस. िवʷनेũ रिव, Ɋाियक सद˟ एवं ŵी अिमताभ शुƑा, लेखा सद˟ क े समƗ Before Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountant Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.64/Chny/2025 िनधाŊरण वषŊ/Assessment Year: 2015-16 Venkatraman Jayashree Priyadharshini, No. 8/5, Rajaji 1st Street, Lake Area, Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034. [PAN:ADAPJ3317L] Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Non Corporate Circle 3(1), Chennai. (अपीलाथŎ/Appellant) (ŮȑथŎ/Respondent) अपीलाथŎ की ओर से / Appellant by : Shri Y. Sridhar, F.C.A. ŮȑथŎ की ओर से/Respondent by : Ms. R. Anita, Addl.CIT सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date of hearing : 05.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 18.08.2025 आदेश /O R D E R PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 26.03.2025 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for the assessment year 2015-16. 2. The assessee raised 5 grounds of appeal amongst which, the only issue emanates for our consideration as to whether the ld. CIT(A) is justified in giving relief to the extent of ₹.88,85,000/- under section 54 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short] Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A. No.64/Chny/25 2 3. Heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. We note that the assessee filed return of income declaring total income of ₹.1,41,02,880/- including the claim of long term capital gains at ₹.1,37,10,855/-. The Assessing Officer determined the same at ₹.2,87,30,855/-. The ld. CIT(A) restricted the long term capital gains at ₹.2,01,70,855/- by giving benefit to an extent of ₹.88,85,000/-. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal in challenging the quantum addition sustained by the ld. CIT(A) to an extent of ₹.64,60,000/- [AO at ₹.2,87,30,855 – CIT(A) at ₹.2,01,70,855]. 4. The ld. AR Shri Y. Sridhar, F.C.A. drew our attention to the valuation report dated 16.03.2020 by VJPS Developer and placed on record the same. On perusal of the same, we note that the Proprietor of VJPS Developer visited the subjected property, inspection and verification done by them, confirmed that the assessee incurred expenditure relating to interior work, paining, wardrobe fitting, modular kitchen, cupboard interior, etc. to an extent of ₹.21,00,000/-, which includes labour and material cost. The ld. AR drew our attention to the case law in the case of Sapna Hemanshu Shah v. DCIT 160 taxmann.com 1194 [Bang. Trib] and submits that the Bangalore Benches of the Tribunal held that interior expenses can be claimed under section 54 of the Act, where a new house Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A. No.64/Chny/25 3 is constructed or purchased. Further, he referred to the case law in the case of Y. Manjula Reddy v. ITO 140 taxmann.com 441 [Bang. Trib] and submits that the Bangalore Benches of the Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to claim additional expenditure incurred by the assessee on interior renovation and furnishing of said new residential property after date of registrations as to make said house habitable under section 54F of the Act. 5. The ld. DR Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT drew our attention the written submissions filed on behalf of the respondent-Revenue and argued that the assessee got relief to the extent allowed by the ld. CIT(A) basing on the evidence produced on record. The ld. DR opposed the submissions of the ld. AR and prayed not to entertain further plea of the assessee. 6. As discussed above, we note from the computation made by the ld. CIT(A) to restrict long term capital gains to the extent of ₹.2,01,70,855/- as against ₹.2,87,30,855/- made by the Assessing Officer by giving benefit relating to cost of new flat/apartment at ₹.88,85,000/-. However, the ld. AR seeking further benefit of cost of expenditure incurred towards interior decoration, etc. to make the new flat habitable. On perusal of the valuation report dated 16.03.2020, it is on record, clearly supports the submissions of the ld. AR. Considering the case law as relied on by the Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A. No.64/Chny/25 4 ld. AR in the case of Sapna Hemanshu Shah v. DCIT (supra) and Y. Manjula Reddy v. ITO (supra), we hold that the assessee is entitled to claim expenditure incurred towards interior work such as paining, wardrobe fitting, modular kitchen, cupboard interior, etc. to an extent of ₹.21.00 lakhs. Thus, we direct the Assessing Officer to give benefit of to the assessee. 7. Further, the ld. AR argued that the builder collected additional cost of ₹.2.00 lakhs towards electricity, water and sewerage connection. The ld. AR argued that the said expenses of electricity etc. are paid to the Government, which were not considered by the ld. CIT(A) and the Assessing Officer to give benefit to the assessee. The ld. AR also submitted that all the details were already furnished before the ld. CIT(A), but, however, ignored the cost of incidental levies. Since the cost of other incidental levies towards water, sewerage and electricity are essential and were actually incurred to make the residential flat fit for habitation, we direct the Assessing Officer to allow benefit to an extent of ₹.2.00 lakhs. Accordingly, the claim of expenditure related to transfer of property to an extent of ₹.21.00 lakhs for interior work such as paining, wardrobe fitting, modular kitchen, cupboard interior, etc. and ₹.2.00 lakhs for water, Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A. No.64/Chny/25 5 sewerage and electricity are allowed. Accordingly, the long term capital gain is computed as under: Particulars ROI (Rs.) 144 order (Rs.) CIT(A)’s order (Rs.) ITAT Sale consideration 3,16,80,000 3,16,80,000 3,16,80,000 3,16,80,000 Less: indexed cost of acquisition 8,24,145 8,24,145 8,24,145 8,24,145 Less: Expenditure related to transfer 21,25,000 21,25,000 18,00,000 21,25,000 Long Term Capital Gains 2,87,30,855 2,87,30,855 2,90,55,855 2,87,30,855 Deduction u/s. 54 Add: Cost towards TNEB, water and sewerage connection Add: Cost of interior work 1,50,20,000 0 88,85,000 88,85,000 0 0 2,00,000 0 0 21,00,000 Taxable Long Term Capital Gain 1,37,10,855 2,87,30,855 2,01,70,855 1,75,45,855 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced on 18th August, 2025 at Chennai. Sd/- Sd/- (AMITABH SHUKLA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI) JUDICIAL MEMBER Chennai, Dated, 18.08.2025 Vm/- आदेश की Ůितिलिप अŤेिषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथŎ/Appellant, 2.ŮȑथŎ/ Respondent, 3. आयकर आयुƅ/CIT, Chennai/Madurai/Coimbatore/Salem 4. िवभागीय Ůितिनिध/DR & 5. गाडŊ फाईल/GF. Printed from counselvise.com "