Nirmala Devi Madhusoodhanan Nair vs. Income Tax Officer - 1(3)

Parties Involved

Facts Summary

The appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [CIT(A)] dated 28.03.2023 for Assessment Year (AY) 2011-12. The assessee also filed a stay application seeking a stay on the collection of an outstanding demand of Rs.25,84,090/-. The learned CIT(A) had issued various notices to the assessee to re-present her case on various dates, but the assessee could not avail the same. Therefore, the learned CIT(A) confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer (AO). The learned A.R. submitted that the assessee has incurred cost on improvement of the impugned property which has not been allowed by the Revenue authorities. However, the necessary details were not furnished in support of the cost incurred towards improvement of the land. The learned A.R. assured to furnish the necessary details if one more opportunity is given to the assessee. The learned Sr. DR supported the orders of the authorities below.…

Legal Issues

• 1. Whether the assessee's claim for the cost of improvement of the impugned property should be allowed?
• 2. Whether the stay application should be dismissed?

Judgment Outcome

Decided in favour of Assessee.

Similar Judgements

• Rajen Rajmalbhai Mehta vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

  Mumbai bench

• Superabiz Businesses India Private Limited vs. The Income Tax Officer

  Chennai bench

• Prem Prakash vs. Income Tax Officer

  Delhi Bench benchAY 2017-18Partly Allowed

• M/s. Meerams Overseas Pvt. Ltd. vs. The Income Tax Officer

  Bangalore benchAY 2016-17Allowed

• Muqeem Khan vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3)(3), Saharanpur (U.P.)-247001

  Delhi Bench benchAY 2019-20Partly Allowed

• Tilak Raj Baisla v. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax

  Delhi Bench benchAY 2014-15Dismissed