← All Phrases

“indexed cost of acquisition”

Capital GainsSection 48Section 48674 judgments

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2 1 1, AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. BHARAT LAKHAJI NANDWANA, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Department is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1366/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. Adv. & Ms. UktiFor Respondent: Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. Adv. & Ms. Ukti
Section 49Section 54Section 54E

held that while computing the capital gains arising on transfer of a capital asset acquired by the assessee through gift or will, the indexed cost of acquisition has to be computed with reference to the year in which the previous owner first held the asset and not the year ... which the previous owner acquired the property and the period of holding of the previous owners must also be included in determining the indexed cost of acquisition. The Hon’ble Court held that indexation in such cases would be available from the year in which the original owner first held

KURUZU RUSSELIAN,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCC-22(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the penalty levied u/s

ITA 2830/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. R. Subramanian, CAFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT
Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

notice issued u/s.148 of the Act, the assessee had offered Long Term Capital Gains amounting to Rs.2,41,45,916/- after claiming indexed cost of acquisition of Rs.8,54,084/-. The assessee also furnished the relevant documentary evidence in support of the computation of capital gains during the course

JAGAT SINGH,KHURJA vs. ITO, WARD 3(2), BULANDSHAHR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7428/DEL/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Hon’Ble & Mrs. Renu Jauhri, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Amit Jain, CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 2(14)Section 250Section 50CSection 54F

invalid notices of enquiry were sent by the Ld. AO and that the Rate of Rs. 60/ sq. Mtr. taken for calculation of Indexed Cost of Acquisition is highly objectionable and without any basis. 3) That the Order u/s 50C of the 1-T Act, 1961 r.w.s

RANVIRSINH AMARSINH DODIYA,AHMEDABAD vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 307/AHD/2026[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Mar 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms Suchitra Kmble

For Appellant: Shri Nimesh R Hariya, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250

assessment year declaring income as per his computation, wherein long-term capital gain arising from sale of immovable property was shown after claiming indexed cost of acquisition, indexed cost of improvement over several financial years, and transfer expenses. The case was selected for scrutiny through CASS on the issue

SACHINKUMAR SUBRAI KANSE,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 42(3)(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

ITA 8140/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev Bhagat, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 149(1)(b)Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)

making an 5 addition of Rs. 80,00,000/- by treating the full value of consideration as Long-term capital gains ignoring the indexed cost of acquisition and indexed cost of improvement 6. Without Prejudice to Ground No 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case

SACHINKUMAR SUBRAI KANSE,THANE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 42(3)(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

ITA 8139/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev Bhagat, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 149(1)(b)Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)

making an 5 addition of Rs. 80,00,000/- by treating the full value of consideration as Long-term capital gains ignoring the indexed cost of acquisition and indexed cost of improvement 6. Without Prejudice to Ground No 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case

PARVATHANENI PRAVEEN,KHAMMAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, KHAMMAM

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 1271/HYD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Mar 2026AY 2021-22
For Appellant: Sri KA Sai Prasad, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR

sold vide\nSale Deed No. 1949/2020 & 1950/2020 dated\n17.07.2022, as per 50C of IT Act\n(Rs.63,45,000+ Rs.35,24,000)\nLess: Indexed Cost of acquisition of part land sold\n(Rs.5,81,000 (2.36/5.00)*(200/301)\nLong term capital gains\nRs.98,69,000\nRs. 1,82,314\nRs.96

SIVASUNDAR SELVAKUMARI,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-1(6), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3154/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. N. Balakrishnan, CIT
Section 139(4)Section 144BSection 147Section 194ISection 45

assessee, the AO proposed to add a sum of Rs.19,86,16,459/- as the LTCG of the assessee after reducing indexed cost of acquisition of Rs.13,48,041/- and sale expenses of Rs.35,500/- from the sale consideration of Rs.20,00,00,000/- for the reason that the expenses

SUPREME TRACTORS PRIVATE LIMITED,HARYANA BHAWAN vs. DCIT, KATNI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 51/JAB/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur27 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri, Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2016-17 Supreme Tractors Pvt Ltd V. Dcit Katni, Madhya Pradesh 483501. Katni, Madhya Pradesh- 483501. Pan:Aajcs4013M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Sahil Gupta, Advocate Respondent By: Shri N. M. Prasad, Sr. Dr-1 Date Of Hearing: 12 02 2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 27 02 2026 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Sahil Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N. M. Prasad, Sr. DR-1
Section 115JSection 234C

year 2006- 07. Following is the detailed capital gain on the said property: Sales Consideration: ₹80,45,000 Less: Page 3 of 7 Indexed Cost of Acquisition in 2006-07 ₹15,85,952 Indexed Cost of Improvement in 2010-11 ₹1,43,958 Indexed Cost of Improvement

MINAKSHI DAS,JALPAIGURI vs. I.T.O., WARD - 1(3),, SILIGURI

ITA 1648/KOL/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Feb 2026AY 2019-2020
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 69A

{ "clean_text": "IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, KOLKATA\nBEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM\nAND\nSHRIPRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY

NITESH AGARWAL,AGRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(1)(3), AGRA

ITA 501/AGR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Agra20 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Accoutant Member Nitesh Agarwal Vs Income Tax 29/81, Lakshmi Palace, Officer-2(1) (3), Namakkimandi, Agra- Agra 282003 Pan No Abnpa2197G Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Anurag Sinha, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 148Section 178Section 234ASection 234BSection 250(6)

represents deemed sale consideration and for arriving at ‘Long Term Capital Gain’ assessee is entitled to deduction of Rs.26,97,383/ - being the indexed cost of acquisition of the asset sold giving rise to Long Term Capital Gain. BECAUSE, upon due consideration of facts and in the overall circumstances

YERRAGUDI VENKATA SIVA REDDY,ANANTAPUR vs. ACIT., CIRCLE-1, KURNOOL

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1294/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1294/Hyd/2025 Assessment Year 2017-2018 Yerragudi Venkata Siva Reddy, Ananthapur The Acit, Vs. Pin – 515 001. Circle-1, Pan Aampy0365L Kurnool. Andhra Pradesh (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: -None- राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 17.02.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 20.02.2026 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: -None-For Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT-DR
Section 2(47)(ii)Section 48

learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in upholding the Assessing Officer's disallowance of 211,24,472/- towards the indexed cost of acquisition of the demolished building, even after acknowledging that:  The assessee had purchased the property with a structure in existence at the time of acquisition ... principles, it is most respectfully prayed that the Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to:  Delete the disallowance of Rs.11,24,472/- towards indexed cost of acquisition of the demolished structure.  Direct re-computation of Long-Term Capital Gains by allowing the said cost under Section 48.  Pass such other

SEETA NAYYAR,MUMBAI vs. ACIT -OSD-IN SITU ITO-19(3)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal is allowed

ITA 6714/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Arun Khodpiaseeta Nayyar, Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Flat No.5, Rockdale, In Situ, Ito, 19(3)(3), Vs. Ld Ruparel Marg, Mumbai Mumbai - 400006 (Appellant) : (Respondent) Pan No. Ajupb 7841H Appellant By : Shri Prakash Jotwani, Advocate Respondent By : Shri Swapnil Choudhary, Sr. Ar (Appellant) (Respondent) Date Of Hearing : 29.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.02.2026

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Jotwani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary, Sr. AR
Section 54

Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2015-16. 2. The grounds raised by the assessee are concerning two issues. The first issue relates to disallowance of indexed cost of acquisition claimed by the assessee and second issue relates to claim of deduction under section (u/s.) 54 of the Income ... extent of the constructed area falling to their share. Thus, he submitted, the Assessing Officer was unjustified in disallowing assessee’s claim of indexed cost of acquisition and restricting to the extent of 22.5%, being share in land falling to the developer/builder. 6. In so far as denial of deduction

YASH KUMAR GOYAL,GWALIOR vs. DCIT/ACIT 2(1), GWALIOR, GWALIOR

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 519/AGR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Agra19 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 153CSection 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 50C

down in various judicial precedents of hon'ble court. 5. That the penalty is not leviable as the alleged error in computation of indexed cost of acquisition was a bona fide and inadvertent clerical mistake, which was voluntarily corrected by filing a revised return in response to notice under Section

YASH KUMAR GOYAL,GWALIOR vs. DCIT/ACIT 2(1), GWALIOR, GWALIOR

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 518/AGR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Agra19 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 153CSection 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 50C

down in various judicial precedents of hon'ble court. 5. That the penalty is not leviable as the alleged error in computation of indexed cost of acquisition was a bona fide and inadvertent clerical mistake, which was voluntarily corrected by filing a revised return in response to notice under Section

ARCHANA RAVI KUMAR ,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2)(5), BENGALURU

In the result stay petition becomes infructuous and hence dismissed

ITA 2523/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeysa No.142/Bang/2025 & Assessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Pranav Krishna, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Balusamy N., Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 194I

Accordingly the learned AO treated the sale consideration received as the income of the assessee and as there is no information available of indexed cost of acquisition, he estimated the cost of acquisition of ₹ 6 lakhs and determined the taxable long-term capital gain of ₹ 7,320,000. The assessment

RAMESH BABU SEGU,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE -1(1), HYDERABAD.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 137/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.137/Hyd/2025 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2018-19) Ramesh Babu Segu, Vs. Acit, Hyderabad. Central Circle-1(1), Pan: Amrps2069N Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) "नधा"रती "वारा/Assessee By: Sri K A Sai Prasad, Ca राज" व "वारा/Revenue By:: Ms. Payal Gupta, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing: 11/02/2026 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Pronouncement: 13/02/2026 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Shri Ramesh Babu Segu (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Hyderabad (“Ld. Cit(A)”), Dated 19/11/2024 For The Assessment Year (“A.Y.”) 2018-19. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grouds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Sri K A Sai Prasad, CAFor Respondent: : Ms. Payal Gupta, Sr. AR
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 69CSection 80C

rate of Rs.1,000 per square yard for 396 sq. yards of land, aggregating to Rs.3,96,000/-, and accordingly computed the indexed cost of acquisition of land at Rs.10,77,120/-. Similarly, the assessee adopted the FMV of the building constructed on the said land

ROHIT MANCHAND,DELHI vs. ITO WARD 5(3)(2), GAUTAM BUDH NAGAR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 5124/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

For Appellant: Sh. Raj Kumar, CA &For Respondent: Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr.DR
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 50cSection 54

considering the sale consideration as per the sale deed u/s 50c of the Act of Rs.1.83 crores and he estimated the index cost of acquisition of Rs.54.90 lakhs and proceeded to make the addition 50% of the above Long Term Capital Gain by earned the assessee at Rs. 64.05 lakhs ... admitted that he has verified the cost of acquisition as declared, (117)(65-85)  He denied for benefit of indexed cost of acquisition in the absence of documentary evidence. (117)  He also admitted for purchase of new property for Rs.1.05 Cr. which is eligible U/s 54, however he mentioned that

PREM PARKASH,NEW DELHI, DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 54(1), DELHI, NEW DELHI, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 8356/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasadassessment Year 2017-18 Prem Prakash Vs. Income Tax Officer A-32, 2Nd Floor, Amar Ward- 54(1) Colony, Lajpat Nagar-4, Delhi New Delhi-110024 Pan No.Agwpp9248D Appellant Respondent Appellant Sh. Akshat Jain, Ca Sh. Rajat Jain, Ca Respondent Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr

Section 147Section 148

response to notice u/s.148 dated 15.03.2024 the assessee filed return of income on 17.05.2024 declaring capital gains of Rs.1,54,497/- after claiming indexed cost of acquisition at Rs.5,08,794/- and indexed cost of improvement of Rs.77,16,709/-apart from declaring income from other sources of Rs.12

LATE SHARAD SHANKAR KALE,NAGPUR vs. ITO WARD 5(1), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed as per the terms indicated above

ITA 511/NAG/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur10 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad

For Appellant: Mrs. Anchal Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 250

been granted by the Ld.CIT(A) and, secondly on merits that Ld. Assessing Officer (AO) erred in not allowing the deduction for indexed cost of acquisition and improvement of the property sold by the assessee during the year. 4. At the outset, learned counsel for the assessee submitted that Late

Showing 1–20 of 674 · Page 1 of 34

...