On October 31, 2025, ITAT Bangalore served a big relief to Mr. Israni, a senior citizen, who sold a house jointly with his wife in Bengaluru for Rs 8 crore. Out of this, he owned Rs 4 crore share. The fight began when Mr. Israni sold his half share of the property for Rs 4.02 crore and filed his income tax return for AY 2022-23 declaring Rs 35 lakh income. Soon, his case was picked for tax scrutiny, leading to tax notices and objections over his claimed expenses. The tax officer rejected Rs 25 lakh spent on personal items like solar panels, air conditioners, and microwaves, calling them ineligible as property improvement costs. Mr. Israni also claimed Rs 5 lakh as travel and courier expenses tied to property sale, but the tax officer denied this, saying travel costs are not allowed under the Income Tax Act. Another Rs 11 lakh claimed as "other charges" from 2005 for acquisition was disallowed for lack of bills and proof. The tax officer said the expense details were rough estimates, not final, missing key payment details. Total income assessed was hiked to Rs 1.2 crore based on these disallowances. Mr. Israni appealed bravely to ITAT Bangalore. The tribunal took a nuanced view. They accepted Mr. Israni’s claim of paying Rs 22.7 lakh (his Rs 11 lakh share) to the builder for civil work, plumbing, and electrical works as valid acquisition cost, noting the missing bank statements were understandable since accounts were closed years ago. They recognized these expenses as essential to make the house livable. On the Rs 25 lakh improvement cost, ITAT agreed some items like air conditioners were personal effects and rightly disallowed. However, a big chunk related to permanent fixtures and embedded parts of the building was allowed as improvement costs, saying these are a natural part of making the house habitable. Mr. Israni voluntarily agreed to exclude Rs 5.5 lakh as personal effects to settle the matter. The Rs 5 lakh travel and courier expense was firmly rejected. ITAT noted many claimed costs like boarding at Mumbai, meals, local travels were not exclusively for the sale and could not be justified as transfer expenses per the law. Mihir Tanna from S.K Patodia LLP told ET Wealth Online: "Genuine reason is always considered by courts. It is tough for taxpayers to show bank proofs when accounts are closed long back, so other documents like builder confirmation are accepted. Only expenses wholly and exclusively for property transfer are allowed." In sum, ITAT Bangalore partially allowed Mr. Israni’s appeal, balancing strict tax rules with practical common sense to give relief to a senior citizen. The order, pronounced openly on October 31, 2025, is a clear message: proper proof matters, personal expenses don’t count, while real property improvement costs deserve their due credit!