KARTHIKEYAN JEYAKUMAR,CHENNAI vs. ITO INTERNATIONAL TAXATION WARD 1(2), CHENNAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's arguments and, in the interest of justice, decided to remand the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. The AO is directed to determine the fair market value of the asset, specifically taking into account the cost of acquisition with indexation as on 01.04.2000. The assessee is granted liberty to submit any supporting evidence. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the grounds raised by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes. The Tribunal did not expressly leave any issue undecided.
What were the facts?
The assessee, Karthikeyan Jeyakumar, filed an appeal against the order dated 28.11.2025 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, for the assessment year 2018-19. The Assessing Officer (AO) had determined the assessee's income at Rs.58,70,529/-, including an addition on account of long-term capital gains. The AO had asked the assessee to show cause why the long-term capital gain should not be re-worked. The assessee disputed this re-working, arguing that the AO failed to consider the cost of acquisition with indexation as on 01.04.2000. The CIT(A) also did not appreciate the cost of acquisition with indexation from 01.04.2000.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the Tribunal should remand the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration of the fair market value, taking into account the cost of acquisition with indexation as on 01.04.2000? (Question of law and fact) Assessee's Contention: The Assessing Officer erred in re-working the long-term capital gains by failing to consider the cost of acquisition with indexation as on 01.04.2000. The assessee prayed for a remand to the AO for fresh consideration of the fair market value, including the indexed cost of acquisition from 01.04.2000. Revenue's Contention: The learned Departmental Representative reported no objection to the assessee's prayer.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: SHRI. INTURI RAMA RAO & BEFORE SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI
PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 28.11.2025 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, for the assessment year 2018-19. 2
At the outset, it is noted that the AO determined the income of the assessee at Rs.58,70,529/-, inter alia, making
The order continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Utkal Highways, Bidanasi vs. Union Of INDIAOrissa · 16 Oct 2026
- Pradeep Kumar Behera vs. Superintendent CGST And Central Excise., CuttackOrissa · 16 Oct 2026
- Manas Behera vs. Commissioner, CT And GST Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 16 Oct 2026
- Pramod Kumar Nayak vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, KendraparaOrissa · 16 Oct 2026
- Nirmal Kumar Sharma S/O Ram Swroop Sharma vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 16 Oct 2026
