CA Student
15932 Points
Posted on 26 July 2013
The Chennai Tribunal in ACIT v. C. Ramabrahmam [2012] held that:
Deduction u/s 24(b) and computation of capital gains u/s 48 are altogether covered by different heads of income i.e., income from ‘house property’ and ‘capital gains’. Neither of them excludes the other. A deduction u/s 24(b) is claimed when the assessee computes income from ‘house property’, whereas, the cost of the same asset is taken into consideration when it is sold and capital gains are computed under section 48. There is no doubt that the interest in question is an expenditure in acquiring the asset. Since both provisions are altogether different, the assessee is entitled to include the interest at the time of computing capital gains u/s 48.
.
Note: The Tribunal's decision appears to be on a sound footing as section 55(1)(b) which defines 'cost of improvement' specifically disallows expenditure which is deductible in computing income under other heads of income. However, section 55(2) which defines 'cost of acquisition' makes no such express disallowance of deduction of expenditure forming part of COA which is deductible/deducted for computing income under other heads of income.