ZOYA ZAKI,NOIDA V. DDIT/ADIT (INT. TAX) RANGE 560, NOIDA, NOIDA

ITITA 57/DEL/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Zoya Zaki, an NRI, who appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) which confirmed the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer. The dispute centered on the computation of Long Term Capital Gains (LTCG) from the sale of a property. The primary issues were the year of indexation for the cost of acquisition and the deduction of brokerage expenses. The Assessing Officer had allowed indexation from FY 2010-11 and disallowed the brokerage deduction due to lack of documentary evidence. The Tribunal, after considering the submissions and evidence, ruled in favor of the assessee, allowing the appeal.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 844480 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (International Taxation) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-03-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2022-2023
• Appeal Filed On: 28-11-2025
• Other Referred Cases: PCIT-3 Mumbai vs. Vembu Vaidyanathan, PCIT vs. Vembu Vaidyanathan, Mrs. Neena Singh vs. ITO
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VIKRAM SINGH SHARMA
• Assessee Lawyers: AMIT KAUSHIK
• Keywords: Cost of acquisition; Capital Gains; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 143(3); 234B

Judgement Text

"IT ITA 57_DEL_2025_ZOYA ZAKI IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, D: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SMT. RENU JAUHRI, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA (IT) A. No. 57/Del/2025 [Assessment Year: 2022-23] Zoya Zaki Flat No. 6, Sector 28, Yamuna Enclave, Gautam Buddha Nagar Noida- 201301 Uttar Pradesh Vs DDIT/ADIT (Int. Taxation) Range-560 Noida PAN- AABPZ9447P Assessee Revenue Assessee by Sh. Amit Kaushik, Advocate Sh. Himanshu Sharma, Advocate Revenue by Sh. Vikram Singh Sharma, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 10.03.2026 Date of Pronouncement 18 .03.2026 ORDER PER RENU JAUHRI: This appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner Income Tax (Appeal) [for short, Ld. CIT(A)] dated 30.09.2025 for A.Y. 2022-23 in Appeal No. CIT(A) Noida- 2/10008/2021-22. The assessment was framed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C (3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) vide order dated 29.04.2024. Printed from counselvise.com IT ITA 57_DEL_2025_ZOYA ZAKI 2 2. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: “1. That the CIT(A) grossly erred in law and on the facts and circumstances of the case in dismissing the appeal of the Appellant by confirming the order dated 29.04.2024 passed by the respondent without considering that the same was erroneous and bad in law. 2. That the CIT(A) grossly erred in law and on the facts and circumstances of the case in dismissing the appeal of the Appellant by confirming the order dated 29.04.2024 passed by the respondent without considering that the additions to the income of the Appellant was made without considering the material on record and in denial of the principles of natural justice. 3. That the CIT(A) grossly erred in law and on the facts and circumstances of the case in dismissing the appeal of the Appellant by confirming the order dated 29.04.2024 passed by the respondent without considering that the indexation of cost of acquisition of Rs. 27,85,003/- was to be indexed from the financial year 2009-10 i.e. first year in which the asset was held by the assessee. 4. That the CIT(A) grossly erred in law and on the facts and circumstances of the case in dismissing the appeal of the Appellant by confirming the order dated 29.04.2024 passed by the respondent without considering that the appellant had duly given the proof of the payment of brokerage of Rs. 92,776/- (50 percent of Rs. 1,85,552/-) at the time of transfer. 5. That the CIT(A) on facts and in law erred in not deleting the interest levied by the respondent under section 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act and in not deleting the penalty imposed under section 270A of the Act. 6. The Appellant craves for leave to add, amend, vary, omit 0R substitute any of the aforesaid grounds of appeal at any time before 0R at the time of hearing of the appeal. 7. That all the grounds are without prejudice to each other. Printed from counselvise.com IT ITA 57_DEL_2025_ZOYA ZAKI 3 8. That the CIT(A) grossly erred in law and on the facts and circumstances of the case in dismissing the appeal of the Appellant by confirming the order dated 29.04.2024 passed by the respondent without considering that the same was without jurisdiction and thus void ab initio.” 3. Although the assessee has raised multiple grounds in her appeal, the sole substantive issue relates to the computation of Capital Gains. The assessee is aggrieved by the denial of deduction on account of brokerage as also on adoption of the relevant year for computing indexed cost of acquisition. 3.1 Brief facts are that the assessee, an NRI sold a property in F.Y. 2021-22 owned jointly with her husband for Rs. 3.42 cr. wherein her share @ 50% was Rs. 1.71cr. The said property was purchased in the F.Y. 2009-10 from the original allottee of DLF Ltd and the cost of flat was stated to be Rs. 1,44,27,063/-. 3.2 The DLF Ltd. made the registry in F.Y. 2010-11 directly in the name of assessee and her husband. It was submitted by the assessee that the property was acquired by taking loan of Rs. 90,00,000/- and another Rs. 35 lakhs was paid to the seller from own sources. Balance of Rs. 19,27,063/- was also paid from own sources. In the computation of capital gains, 50% of the stamp duty i.e., Rs. 8,57,940/- was also added to the cost of acquisition which therefore worked out to Printed from counselvise.com IT ITA 57_DEL_2025_ZOYA ZAKI 4 Rs. 1,52,85,003/. The Ld. Jurisdictional Assessing Officer [for short, JAO] held that out of the above amount, in respect of Rs. 28,00,003/- [Rs. 19,27,063/- + Rs. 8,57,940/-] benefit of indexation should be allowed from F.Y. 2010-11 and not F.Y. 2009-10 as claimed by the assessee. Further, 50% of brokerage paid i.e., Rs. 92,776/- was also not allowed as deduction in the absence of requisite documentary evidence while recomputing the Capital Gains. Accordingly, an order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(3) of the Act was passed on 29.04.2024 whereby Long Term Capital Gains [for short, LTCG] was complied at Rs. 10,55,688/- as against declared LTCG of Rs. 6,37,812/-. 3.3 Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). However, Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee observing that since payment of Rs. 19,27,063/- plus Rs. 8,57,940/- was made at the time of registration in F.Y. 2010-11, Ld. AO had rightly allowed indexation in respect of this amount from F.Y. 2010-11 only. As regards brokerage, Ld. CIT(A) held that there is a screenshot of bank statement showing the transaction but in the absence of any receipt from the broker, deduction has rightly been disallowed. Further aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. Printed from counselvise.com IT ITA 57_DEL_2025_ZOYA ZAKI 5 4. Before us, Ld. AR has submitted that the payment of Rs. 19,27,063/- was actually made in F.Y. 2009-10 but, due to lapse of time, the assessee is not able to retrieve the bank details. Further, the possession letter was issued to the appellant on 09.12.2009 by the DLF Ltd. only after all the payments had been made and accounted for. However, the registration of the sale deed took place in June, 2010. Copies of agreement to sell dated 02.12.2009, loan documents in respect of Rs. 90,00,000/- sanctioned on 07.12.2009 as well as the registered sale deed dated 29.06.2010 have also been placed on record. 4.1 Ld. AR has further placed reliance on a plethora of judgements in support of his arguments that the date of allotment in such cases would be the date of acquisition of property for computing the LTCG. Some of the decisions relied upon by him are as under: i. PCIT-3 Mumbai vs. Vembu Vaidyanathan [2019] 108 taxmann.com 339 (SC) wherein it was held that the date of allotment would be the date of acquisition when an assessee purchases a flat being constructed by DDA. ii. PCIT vs. Vembu Vaidyanathan [2019] 108 taxmann.com 339 (SC) whereby the SLP filed by Revenue against the above decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court was dismissed. iii. Mrs. Neena Singh vs. ITO, ITA No. 1074/Del/2018 wherein Hon’ble Co-ordinate Bench at Delhi had held that the date of agreement of an identifiable unit or property is the date of its acquisition. Printed from counselvise.com IT ITA 57_DEL_2025_ZOYA ZAKI 6 4.3 On the other hand, Ld. DR has strongly relied on the orders of the lower authorities. 5. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. Relevant judicial pronouncements have been considered with reference to the facts at hand. 5.1 Admittedly, the assessee acquired the impugned property in 2009 for which the payment was made during F.Y. 2009-10 by taking bank loan of Rs. 90,00,000/- and balance amount from own sources. It is only after the total payment was made that the allotment letter was issued by the DLF in the name of the assessee on 09.12.2009 as is evident from the allotment letter and sale deed. We, therefore, hold that the property has been acquired in F.Y. 2009-10 and, therefore, indexation on the cost of acquisition, including brokerage has to be allowed w.e.f F.Y. 2009-10 irrespective of the fact that the sale deed was registered in the next financial year. We, therefore, direct the Ld. AO to allow the computation of cost of acquisition by giving benefit of indexation in respect of the entire amount w.e.f. F.Y. 2009-10. Further deduction on account of brokerage of Rs. 92,776/- is also directed to be allowed in view of evidence placed on record showing payment made to the broker Mr. Harsh Gupta through the banking channels. Printed from counselvise.com IT ITA 57_DEL_2025_ZOYA ZAKI 7 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 18th March, 2026. Sd/- Sd/- [ANUBHAV SHARMA] [RENU JAUHRI] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated-18.03.2026. Pooja Mittal, Sr. PS. Copy forwarded to: 1. Assessee 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi Printed from counselvise.com "