B.R. Ramaraju; Kamala Rajshekar (through legal heir); B.R. Anjan Kumar v. Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr.

1. FACTS OF THE CASE

The common order covers W. P.6467/2015 by B. R. Ramaraju, W. P.6470 and 26074/2015 by Kamala Rajshekar through her legal representative B. R. Anjan Kumar, and W. P.6469/2015 by B. R. Anjan Kumar. For AY 2009-10, the petitioners claimed brokerage, eviction charges and improvement costs on transfers of immovable property. The Assessing Officer disallowed the claims on 30 November 2011.

Source: PDF pp.1–4

2. DISCUSSION BY THE COURT

The Commissioner rejected the section 264 revisions on 27 March 2014 because relevant material constituting substantial legal evidence had not been produced. Before the High Court, counsel could not identify evidence establishing the asserted expenditure.

Source: PDF pp.4–5

3. JUDICIAL DECISION

All the writ petitions were rejected. The Court found no ground to interfere with the revisional orders in the absence of supporting evidence.

Source: PDF p.5

4. OUTCOME

The disallowances remained undisturbed for failure of proof. The order did not hold that brokerage, eviction charges or improvements are invariably inadmissible. Section 153C read with section 143(3) is expressly identified in the opening prayer for W. P.6467; the other prayers use the source’s abbreviated section 153 reference.

Source: PDF pp.2–5

5. Expert Comments

AKHB editorial analysis, distinct from the Court’s findings.

Identify evidence for each expenditure claim

The decisive shortcoming was not merely the label attached to an expense but the absence of relevant proof. A transfer document alone would not necessarily establish who paid brokerage, what an eviction payment secured, or what improvement work occurred. Those are the factual links the unsuccessful claims lacked in the Court’s account.

Source: PDF pp.4–5

Revision did not cure an unsupported factual record

The Commissioner’s rejection and counsel’s inability to point to evidence before the Court reinforced one another. The result illustrates why a revision challenge needs to identify the actual material said to have been ignored, rather than repeat the expenditure assertion without its evidentiary basis.

Source: PDF pp.4–5

Keep the common disposition and distinct petitioners together

Four writ numbers were resolved by this single order. Their identities remain represented, but duplicate PDF copies do not establish separate substantive decisions. Nor does this evidentiary dismissal establish a categorical rule against all property-transfer expenses.

Source: PDF pp.1–5