SUBHLAXMI GURUNATH KAMAT,SINDHUDURG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, KUDAL

ITA 1795/PUN/2025Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 September 2025Bench: DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the cost of acquisition needs to be determined as per Section 49 of the Income Tax Act, considering the previous owner's cost. The AO and CIT(A) erred in rejecting the assessee's valuation report without proper reasons and in not allowing the indexed cost of acquisition.

What were the facts?

The assessee sold ancestral agricultural land, converted to non-agricultural land, for Rs. 40 lakhs. The stamp duty valuation was Rs. 52,80,000. The assessee claimed a lower capital gain based on a valuation report and indexed cost of acquisition, while the AO and CIT(A) relied on the stamp duty value and disallowed indexed cost. The original land was inherited and divided among siblings.

What were the issues?

Whether the AO and CIT(A) were justified in rejecting the assessee's valuation report and disallowing indexed cost of acquisition for Long Term Capital Gains, and whether the cost of acquisition should be determined under Section 49.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 147,Section 144B,Section 50C,Section 48,Section 49,Section 2(14)(iii),Section 148,Section 148A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCHES “B” :: PUNE

Before: DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S Shingte
For Respondent: Shri Aviyogi Ambadkar– Addl.CIT(DR)
Hearing: 10/09/2025Pronounced: 25/09/2025

PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM: This appeal filed by the Assessee against the order of ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal)[NFAC] passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the A.Y.2018-19 dated 06.05.2025 emanating from the Assessment Order passed under section 147 r.w.s 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 06.03.2023. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :

ITA No.1795/PUN/2025 [A] “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the CIT(A), NFAC erred in confirming the action of the AO, NaFAC of computing the income from

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.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

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.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →