← All Phrases

“indexed cost of acquisition”

Capital GainsSection 48Section 48674 judgments

The decision most relied on for indexed cost of acquisition is CIT v. Manjula J. Shah (355 ITR 474), cited in 113 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on indexed cost of acquisition

CIT v. Manjula J. Shah
355 ITR 474 · 2013 · High Court
113
citing judgments

For capital assets acquired by gift or will, the indexed cost of acquisition under Section 48 is computed with reference to the year the previous owner first held the asset. The period of holding for determining if an asset is long-term also includes the previous owner's holding period, as per Section 2(42A).

PCIT v. Vembu Vaidyanathan
108 Taxmann.com 339 · 2019 · Supreme Court
13
citing judgments

A Special Leave Petition filed by the Income Tax Department against a decision concerning the computation of capital gains or related issues was dismissed by the Supreme Court.

Karnataka State Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. v. DCIT
76 Taxmann.com 360 · 2016 · ITAT
13
citing judgments

The expression 'any income' in Section 10(38) refers to long-term capital gains computed under Section 48, which includes the indexed cost of acquisition. This principle applies when computing book profits under Section 115JB.

Bharat Hari Singhania v. CWT
19 SOT 612 · 2008 · High Court
11
citing judgments

While the case involves a reference to "fresh tangible material", "valuation of shares", "going concern", and "indexed cost of acquisition", the provided passages do not clearly articulate the specific holding of Bharat Hari Singhania v. CWT.

Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. v. DCIT, 313 ITR (AT) 263 (SB)
110 ITD 59 · 2008 · ITAT
10
citing judgments

The Assessing Officer cannot improve his assessment by adopting a new theory during reassessment proceedings.

CIT v. Shri Hariram Hotels Pvt. Ltd.
325 ITR 136 · 2010 · High Court
10
citing judgments

Interest paid on loans taken for acquiring an asset is includible in the cost of acquisition for computing capital gains. This interest is also eligible for indexation benefit.

Judgments citing indexed cost of acquisition

Goverdhan Lal Yadav, Indore vs. Income Tax Officer-3(5), Indore

Appeal is allowed

ITA 854/IND/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore24 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year : 2015-16 Goverdhan Lal Yadav, Ito-3(5) 112/12, Nanda Nagar, Indore बनाम/ Opp. Anoop Takies, Vs. Indore (Revenue / Appellant) (Assessee / Respondent) Pan: Aaypy9432A Assessee By Shri Venus Rawka, Ar Revenue By Shri Anoop Singh, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 22.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24.07.2025 आदेश/ O R D E R

Section 143(3)Section 253(5)Section 54B

consideration of Rs. 9,31,38,041/-. The assessee declared 1/3rd share in land at Rs. 3,10,46,013/- against which claimed indexed cost of acquisition of Rs. 81,538/-, leaving net capital gain of Rs. 3,09,64,475/-. From such capital gain, the assessee claimed exemption ... consideration of Rs. 9,31,38,041/-. The assessee declared 1/3rd share in land at Rs. 3,10,46,013/- against which claimed indexed cost of acquisition of Rs. 81,538/-, leaving net capital gain of Rs. 3,09,64,475/-. From such capital gain, the assessee claimed exemption

Sonea Dhir, Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-32 (1), New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3073/DEL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 250Section 50C

assessee has declared capital gain of Rs. 23.55,859/- However, no computation of capital gain i.e full value, cost of acquisition, indexed cost of acquisition etc has been provided in schedule CG of the ITR. The assessee produced a copy of computation of capital gain during verification proceedings

Shankare Gowda, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(3)(3), Bangalore

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 323/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2018-19 Shankare Gowda No.2314/A/1681/A, Behind Bescom Office Subhash Nagara Ito Nelamangala Vs. Ward 4(3)(3) Bengaluru Rural 562 123 Bengaluru Karnataka Pan No : Bozpg9856G Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Sri Mohit Ashok Parmar, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Subramanian S., D.R
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 48

original ITR. Further, in the revised return, the assessee has declared full value of consideration amounting to Rs.19,42,50,000/-,claimed indexed cost of acquisition amounting to Rs.1,66,26,798/- and indexed cost of improvement amounting to Rs.3,87,47,848/-.During the course of the assessment proceedings

Harish Ramchandra Joshi(HUF), Hubli vs. ACIT, Circle-1(1) & Tps, Hubli

The appeal are allowed

ITA 281/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Joshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Balusamy N., Jt.CIT (DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69A

included the Declaration made by the assessee under the IDS. He submitted that assessee has sold Silver of Rs.1,50,64,500, the indexed cost of acquisition of the same was Rs.1,31,15,079 which resulted into capital gain of Rs.19,49,421, on which assessee has paid ... assessee has sold Silver, the full value of sale of the capital asset is Rs.1,50,64,500, the indexed cost of acquisition of the same was claimed at Rs.1,31,15,079. Thus capital gain of Rs.19,49,421 was worked out and tax thereon was paid

Syed Irfan Hazari, Guntur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3), Guntur

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 305/VIZ/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Us:

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 44A

computation of capital loss, the A.O. observed that the assessee had, against the aforesaid sale consideration, claimed as deduction viz., (i). indexed cost of acquisition: Rs.15,79,083/-; and (ii). indexed cost of improvement: Rs.4,32,431/-. Although, the assessee had substantiated the cost of purchase of the subject property

Kolan Vanaja, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-15(1), Hyderabad

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 297/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Us:

For Appellant: Smt. S. Sandhya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gurpreet Singh, Sr.DR
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 69A

1/3rd share in the property 6) The learned CIT(A) ought to have held that the gain is assessable as LTCG and the indexed cost of acquisition is allowable as deduction. 7) Any other ground/grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing;” 2. Succinctly stated, the A.O. based

ACIT, Ltu-2, Chennai vs. Ashok Leyland Limited, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2618/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvFor Respondent: Mr.A. Sasikumar, CIT
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

assessee A) Long-term (LT) investment: % share in ownership interest(LT in nature) 1.59% 46.93% 48.52% Cost of acquisition 747.58 22.108.55 22,856.13 Indexed Cost of acquisition [upto FY 2013-14] 884.98 27,685.52 28,570.50 B) Short-term (ST) investment: % share in ownership interest

Lalit Prakash, Lucknow vs. CIT(A), Lucknow

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 474/LKW/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow04 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2020-21 Lalit Prakash V. The Cit(A) 8A/292, Vrindavan Yojana Lucknow Raebareilly Road Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aivpp9819K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Santosh Verma, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R. O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Santosh Verma, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R

Social Welfare Trust. 2.1 The assessee had sold an immovable property for a sale consideration of Rs.17,80,000/- and after claiming indexed cost of acquisition of Rs.5,78,000 and indexed cost of improvement of Rs.11,99,350/-, declared a Long Term Capital Gain of Rs.2650/-. During the course

Bipinbhai Chhaganbhai Jodhani, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 3(3)(1), Surat

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

ITA 919/SRT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat03 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.919/Srt/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Bipinbhai Chhaganbhai The Ito बनाम/ Jodhani Ward-3(3)(1) 21, Swetrajhans Society Surat – 395 001 V/S. Khodiyar Nagar Road Varachha Road Surat – 395 006 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Addpj 9297 Q (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mehul Patel, Ar Revenue By : Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 07/04/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 03/07/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Dated 28/06/2024 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-2018. Bipinbhai Chhaganbhai Jodhani Vs. Ito Asst. Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Patel, ARFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr.DR
Section 24Section 24bSection 250Section 48

Rs.1,60,00,000/- and shown capital loss of Rs.8,22,012/-. In the computation of capital gain/loss the assessee had claimed Indexed cost of acquisition of Rs.1,38,20,549/- and Indexed cost of improvement of Rs.30,01,463/-. The details of property and computation was as under:- Particular

Gokul Prasad Patel, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-13(3), Hyderabad

ITA 353/HYD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Us:

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 50CSection 64(1)(iv)

after allowing only legal expenses of Rs. 3 lakhs. 3) The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have held that the indexed cost of acquisition as claimed of Rs. 17,75,428/- be allowed. 4. Any other ground/grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing ... finding no infirmity in the view taken by the A.O., who had declined the assessee's claim for double deduction of the “Indexed cost of acquisition” and “Indexed cost of improvement”, upheld the same by observing as under: “3.2. As far as the taxability under Capital Gain

Essar Communications Limited, Mauritius vs. ACIT, Circle-1 (2)(2), New Delhi

ITA 340/DEL/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N. Venkatraman, ASG
Section 250Section 253Section 6(3)

interest received from EPSL is to be taxed twice both as part of sale consideration as well as 'income from other sources'. Regarding indexed cost of acquisition Whether the indexed cost of acquisition of the VEL shares was correctly computed in the hands of the Assessee. " ii. Summary

Essar Com Limited, Mauritius vs. ACIT, Circle 1(2)(2), New Delhi

ITA 339/DEL/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shris.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N. Venkatraman, ASG
Section 250Section 253Section 6(3)

interest received from EPSL is to be taxed twice both as part of sale consideration as well as 'income from other sources’. Regarding indexed cost of acquisition Whether the indexed cost of acquisition of the VEL shares was correctly computed in the hands of the Assessee. " Summary of the findings

Neeru Arora, Chandigarh vs. Circle-1, International Taxation, Chandigarh

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

ITA 60/CHANDI/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Tarundeep Kaur, CIT, DR
Section 142(1)Section 144C(2)Section 147Section 148Section 2(47)(v)Section 48Section 50CSection 50C(1)Section 50C(2)Section 53A

adopting the stamp duty value of Rs.1.51 crore as deemed consideration under section 50C. He further denied the benefit of the indexed cost of acquisition and initiated penalty proceedings under sections 271(1)(c) and 271F. 7. The assessee filed objections against the draft order before the Dispute Resolution Panel ... Valuation Officer. This mandatory procedure was not followed, rendering the addition unsustainable. 11. The AO further erred in not granting any deduction towards indexed cost of acquisition, which is impermissible under the law. The entire value was treated as capital gain in disregard of the provisions of section

Rangaraj Rohini, Indiranagar Bangalore vs. Deputy Commssioner of Income Tax Asmnt Circle 2(1) Bangalore, Kormangala Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 224/BANG/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jun 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Shri Siddesh Nagaraj Gaddi, CAFor Respondent: Dr. KJ Dhivya, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)

from the sale of immovable property for Rs. 2,68,00,000/- only. The assessee against the sale of property claimed the indexed cost of acquisition of the property at Rs. 2,00,45,625/- based on a purchase deed dated 15.12.2006. 3. However, the AO noted discrepancies ... cost of acquisition at Rs. 77,14,720 only. 4. On question by the AO for submitting the documentary evidence to substantiate the indexed cost of acquisition, the assessee failed to provide complete documentary evidence for the claimed index cost of acquisition. Accordingly, the AO restricted the cost of acquisition

Shahjad Qureshi, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

ITA 403/JPR/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Jun 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR

prove his claim. However, I find that the property was purchased by Mr. Mohammad Sharif for Rs.4,00,000/-, hence the benefit of indexed cost of acquisition from 2008 i.e. date of registry of power of 3 SHRI SAHJAD QURESHI VS ITO, WARD 2(2), JAIPUR attorney is allowed ... appellant. The AO, therefore, directed to recalculate the long term capital gain accordingly after allowing the benefit of indexed cost of acquisition on Rs.4,00,000/-.Thus the ground raised by the appellant is partly allowed. 7. In the result, the appellant is partly allowed.’’ 2.2 During the course

Nanag Ram Meena, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 6(4), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is partly allowed as indicated

ITA 1398/JPR/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Jun 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Issuing The Notice U/S 148. The Action Of The Ld. Ao Was Illegal & Therefore Deserves To Be Quashed Or Set Aside. 2

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Gupta, CA andFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT -DR
Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 154Section 271(1)(c)Section 50CSection 54F

Consideratio n |27,93,000 |76,38,967 |76,38,967 |27,93,000/- |Less: Indexed Cost of Acquisition (2005-06) Rs. 4,67,705 |4,67,705 |4,67,705 |4,67,705 3,67,800*632/ 497 |Capital Gain ... value u/s 50C” Accordingly, the correct computation of Long Term Capital Gain is as follows:- Full Value of consideration (Actual):- Rs.27,93,000 Indexed Cost of Acquisition & Transfer Expenses: Rs.4,67,705 Capital Gain: Rs.23,25,295 Deduction u/s 54F: Rs.22,89,496 Taxable Capital Gain: Rs.35,799 Hence

Braj Kishore Singh, Andheri East vs. Assessing Officer Int. Tax Ward 4(2)(1), International Tax, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is accordingly partly allowed for statistical

ITA 1011/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanbraj Kishore Singh Vs. Assessing Officer 604, Lantana, Nahar Amrit Internatinal Tax Ward Shakti, Chandivali, 4(2)91) Maharashtra -400 072. Room No. 632, Kautilya Bhavan, Pan: Bqips8474H C-41 To C-43, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051

Section 142(1)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(2)Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

immovable property was recomputed by the AO as under:- Sale consideration of the property Rs.70,00,000 Cost of acquisition Rs.36,77,020 Indexed cost of acquisition 1024/711*36,77,020 Rs. 52,95,736 Long term capital gain Rs.17,04,264 4. In the draft assessment order ... further observed that the core of the dispute is concerning Explanation (iii) to section 48 of the Income-tax Act i.e. 'Indexed Cost of Acquisition'. Ld. DRP finally concluded that the appellant has been given ownership/possession of the flat only in year 2010 as per the possession letter submitted

Alauddin, Agra vs. ITO, Ward 1(1)(1), Agra

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 241/AGR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Agra20 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: : Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2015-16

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 2(14)Section 250Section 54

Price indexed for F.Y. 2014-15 (1024) Sale consideration of property for the year 2014-15: Rs. 45,00,000/- Less: Indexed cost of acquisition = 371000 x 1024/497 = Rs. 764394/- of property for the year 2014-15. Long Term Capital Gain for 2014-15: Rs. 37,35,606/- 6. However ... amount of long term capital gain wrongly computed by the Ld Assessing officer, taking incorrect amount of sale, cost of acquisition and indexed cost of acquisition into consideration while calculating the amount of long term capital gain. 6 | P a g e The Ld AO also failed to appreciate

Shanmughasundharamramanathan, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-10(6), Chennai

ITA 888/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.888/Chny/2025 िनधा8रण वष8 /Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shanmughasundharam The Income Tax Officer, Ramanathan, Vs. Non Corporate Ward-10(6), No.45, Theosophical Society, Chennai. Adyar, Chennai – 600 020. [Pan: Aafps 6078P]

For Appellant: Shri G. Akash, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 234CSection 234D

Long Term Capital Gains (LTCG) of Rs. 13,53,87,969/-. In the assessment order, the A.O has computed LTCG after considering the indexed cost of acquisition as on 1990-91 as against 1980-81 taken by the assessee. The A.O has also disallowed the cost of improvement

Sh. Bhaveshkumar Ganshyam Patel, Vadodara, Gujarat vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(2)(1), Vadodara, Gujarat

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 951/AHD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2015-16 Shri Bhaveshkumar Ganshyam Patel Ito, Ward-1(2)(1) 446 Patel Faliya Vs. Vadodara. Moti Khadaki, Tb Sanatorium So Vadodara, Gujarat. Pan : Aunpp 1026 C (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Ms.Nikhita Bhamblani, Ca & Shri Virat Bhavsar, Ar : Ms.Urvashi Mandhan, Sr.Dr. Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16/06/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: /06/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 271(1)(c)

return, the assessee did not offer any capital gain on transfer of land but instead disclosed a long-term capital loss by claiming indexed cost of acquisition and improvement. The Assessing Officer (AO) gathered information that the assessee had transferred immovable property admeasuring 6750 sq.mtrs at Gotri, Vadodara