“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

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

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

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

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

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

Arun Dwivedi, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-9(2), New Delhi

ITA 6293/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vimal Kumar & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 54Section 56(2)(vii)

Floor, Vivekanandpuri, Lucknow and N-1, Kailash Colony, Delhi, respectively computed the Long Term Capital Gains of Rs.17,13,015/- after allowing indexed cost of acquisition of Rs.28,82,162/-from the sale consideration of Rs.45,95,177/-but did not allow the claim of deduction

A. Jayapalan, Chennai vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle-3(2), Chennai

ITA 491/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.491/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2013-14 & Stay Application No.21/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2013-14 Shri Annamalai Jayapalan, 3/400, 10Th Street, Venkateshwara Nagar, Kottivakkam, Chennai-600 041. [Pan: Aadpj 3842 Q] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By V. The Dcit, Corporate Circle-3(2), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Mr.K. Meenatchi Sundaram, Ca प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से / Respondent By : Mr.Keerthi Narayanan, Jcit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24.04.2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 11.06.2025 आदेश / Order Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, (Hereinafter Referred To As "The Ld.Cit(A)"), Delhi, Dated 29.01.2025 For The

For Respondent: Mr.Keerthi Narayanan, JCIT

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

computation statement for long term capital gain, the assessee had adopted the above value of Rs.1,44,53,000/- and the indexed cost of acquisition was arrived at Rs.2,89,06,000/- (1,44,53,000/-* 852/426). However, in the purchase deed, the age of building was shown ... existence at the time of sale, the cost of acquisition should not include the value of such building and Indexed cost of acquisition is required to be reworked as under: Land value Stamp duty (proportionate) Total value

Jsw Steel Employees Welfare Trust, Mumbai vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2880/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Joshi, A/RFor Respondent: Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik, Sr. D/R

Section 10(34)Section 115JSection 14ASection 234BSection 234C

separately: Dividend received Loss of Business or Profession: II. INCOME FROM CAPITAL GAINS For Shares sold to Employees: Full Value of Consideration Less: Indexed cost of acquisition Long Term Capital Loss to be carried forward III. INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES Dividend Less: Exempt u/s 10(34) r.w.s.115BBDA Taxable Dividend Income

Raj Kumar, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-58(4), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3092/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Sapra, Advocate

Section 143(3)Section 46ASection 48Section 54

Rs.8 lakhs paid as commission to a broker Ms Nikita Angirish u/s 48, expense of Rs.42,22,152/- on account of denial of indexed cost of acquisition u/s 48 and of Rs.94,50,000/- being exemption claimed u/s 54 of the Act. Before us the appellant has filed a detailed ... issue seminal to the controversy is that the assessee is claiming cost of improvement of the property which has contributed to enhanced indexed cost of acquisition. Though the onus to establish a claim of its expenditure primarily rest upon the appellant. Yet we find force in the argument

Ashok Kumar, Gurgaon vs. ITO Ward1(5), Gurgaon

In the result, impugned order is upheld and appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1639/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआअसं.1639/िद"ी/2019(िन.व. 2015-16) Ashok Kumar, H.No. M-231, South City-1, Gurgaon, Haryana 122001 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Alypk-0003-G बनाम Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(5), ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Gurgaon, Haryana Assessee By : None Department By: Shri Ashish Tripathi, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 12/03/2025 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : : 11/06/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Gurgaon (Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Cit(A)') Dated 18.12.2018, For Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. A Perusal Of Appeal File Shows That The Appeal Was Filed In The Year 2019 & Thereafter, The Appeal Was Listed For Hearing On Fifteen Dates. On Most Of The Dates Fixed For Hearing None Appeared To Represent The Assessee & On Some Dates Wherever Representative Of The Assessee Appeared, Adjournment Was Sought. It Seems

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Tripathi, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 54FSection 69

bearing no. 14, Sector-40, Gurgaon for a consideration of Rs.1,23,00,000/- on 05.02.2015. The assessee after availing the benefit of indexed cost of acquisition at Rs.44,42,206/- declared Long Term Capital Gain of Rs.78,57,794/-. The assessee invested Long Term Capital Gain for acquiring

Shri Simerdeep Singh, Jalandhar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1, Jalandhar

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 260/ASR/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar06 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Udayan Das Gupta, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No. 260/Asr/2022 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessmentyear: 2016-17) Shri Simerdeep Singh Dcit बनाम/ Vs. H. No. 833 Urban Estate Phase-I Central Circle-1 Jalandhar- 144001. Jalandhar. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Abrps-8245-F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/Appellant By : S/Shri J. S. Bhasin (Advocate)& A. P. Singh (Ca) –Ld.Ars ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondentby : Ms. Vandana Vijay Mohite (Cit) – Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 23-04-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 06-06-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: S/Shri J. S. Bhasin (Advocate)& A. P. SinghFor Respondent: Ms. Vandana Vijay Mohite (CIT) – Ld. DR

Section 132Section 139Section 153A

therein was the actual sale consideration which exchanged hands. Therefore, capital gains were recomputed by adopting sale consideration of Rs.155 Lacs. After deducting indexed cost of acquisition, Long-Term capital loss was worked out to be Rs.9.65 Lacs which was not allowed to be carried forward since the original return

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Phoola Rani Chadha, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 3480/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Khettra Mohan Royphoola Rani Chadha Vs. Acit, Circle 30(1) Plot No. 23, Civic Centre, Road No. D-4 Dlf, Minto Road Phase-1, Dlf City New Delhi – 110002 Gurgaon, Haryana 122002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaapc1676L Appellant .. Respondent Acit, Vs. Phoola Rani Chadha Room No. 1001, 10Th C-51, Defence Colony Floor, E-2, Block, New Delhi – 110024 Civic Centre, Minto Road Delhi – 110002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaapc1676L Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Ravi Bhatia, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT, DR

Section 143(3)

only follow up activities. The departmental representative failed to controvert the issue. However, we do not concur with the methodology to calculate the indexed cost of acquisition. The indexation must be linked with the payment schedule. AO is directed to recomputed long term capital gain accordingly. 12. In the result

Phoola Rani Chadha, New Delhi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 30(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 3469/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Sh. Ravi Bhatia, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT, DR

Section 143(3)

Sh. Rajinder Singh Bedi, Chandigarh vs. DCIT (Intl. Taxation), Chandigarh

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 538/CHANDI/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 538/Chd/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Rajinder Singh Bedi, The Dcit, (Int.Taxation ), 1368, Sector 40-B, Vs Chandigarh. Chandigarh. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Afwpb3355A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 09.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.06.2025 Hybrid Hearing O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(2)(b)Section 144C(5)

cost of any improvement thereto: x x x x Explanation.—For the purposes of this section,— (i) x x (ii) x x (iii) “indexed cost of acquisition” means an amount which bears to the cost of acquisition the same proportion as Cost Inflation Index for the year in which ... asset and the cost of any improvement thereto. 7.1 Sub-clause (3) of the Explanation appended to this Section would further contemplate that ‘Index Cost of Acquisition’ means an amount which bears to the cost of acquisition, the same proportion has Cost Inflation Index for A.Y.2018-19 9 the year

Ranjitsinh Laxmansinh Gayol, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-1, Gandhinagar

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

ITA 2154/AHD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year 2012-13

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr. D.R

Section 144Section 147Section 148

Since the assessee has not submitted anything, the Assessing Officer held that for the principle of natural justice the indexed cost of acquisition as on 01-04-1981 has taken on the material available for the respective property as per valuation of the DVO, the Income Tax Department, Ahmedabad

Anand Swarup Mehta, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer(International Tax)-3(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 851/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jun 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 111ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144C(5)

That on the facts and the circumstances of the case, and in law, the Learned AO has erred in determining the Indexed Cost of Acquisition (as stipulated in Explanation to section 48 of the Act) by considering the Cost Inflation Index of FY 2017-18 (ie, the Financial Year ... consideration was actually discharged by the Assessee, pursuant to the date of acquisition being 14 February 2011, for the purpose of determining the indexed cost of acquisition. 3. Miscellaneous Charges incurred on acquisition of Kalpataru Property That on the facts and under the circumstances of the case

Smt. Soni Sonu Mirchandani, Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-5, New Delhi

Appeal are dismissed

ITA 2325/DEL/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jun 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 2325/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Smt. Soni Sonu Mirchandani, Vs Acit, F-166, Malcha Marg, Anand Central Circle-5, Niketan, New Delhi-110021 New Delhi-110005 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaqpm7786H Assessee By: None Revenue By : Sh. Akhilesh Kumar Yadav, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 04.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 04.06.2025 Order This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2009-10, Arises Against The Cit(A)-24, New Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Apl/M/250/2024-25/1073130044(1) Dated 11.02.2025, In Proceedings U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Akhilesh Kumar Yadav, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 45Section 48

assessed income of Rs.3,84,18,760/-. The details of addition made during the course of assessment proceedings are as under:- i. Indexed cost of acquisition for LTCG shown by the assessee on sale of shares was restricted to Rs.75,75,001/- as against Rs.99,80,872/-, This restriction

Ibrahim Yakub Doba, Surat vs. ITO, Ward-2(2)(2), Surat

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

ITA 337/SRT/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat02 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.337/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Hybrid Hearing) Ibrahim Yakub Doba, Vs. The Ito, 11, Mayat Faliya, Kathor, Surat – Ward - 2(2)(2), 394150 Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Bbvpd5652A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) Appellant By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Respondent By Ms. Neerja Sharma, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 02/06/2025

Section 250Section 54BSection 56(2)(vii)

making addition of Rs.76,64,867/- on account of alleged long term capital gain worked out on sale of agriculture land without taking indexed cost of acquisition and Deduction claimed u/s.54B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. It is therefore prayed that the above addition may please be deleted

Krishna Kishore Reddy Manyam, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(4), Hyderabad

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

ITA 58/HYD/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad02 Jun 2025AY 2008-09

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(14)Section 548Section 54BSection 54F

ought to have directed the assessing officer to allow further claim of expenditure towards cost of acquisition of Rs.70,17,970/- (indexed cost of acquisition) while calculating long term capital gain. 6. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble CIT(A) ought to have directed ... dated 20.08.2002: Rs.5,00,000/-; and (ii). Cheque No. 626178, dated 28.08.2002, directed the A.O. to allow the same while working out the Indexed cost of acquisition. Accordingly, the CIT(A) based on his aforesaid deliberations partly allowed the appeal. 11. The assessee being aggrieved with the order

ITO - 42(1)(5), Mumbai vs. Samyukta Nair, Mumbai

Accordingly, Ground No.1 to 3 raised by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 496/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Prakash JotwaniFor Respondent: Shri BhangepatilPushkaraj Ramesh

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250

Total Cost of Flat Purchased 30,00,00,000 Add: Service Tax @ 3.09% 92,70,000 Total Cost 30,92,70,000 Indexed Cost of Acquisition Index as on 2012 852 Index as on 2016 1125 309270000*1125/852 40,83,67,077 Sale Consideration Received (Net of Service

Premraj Singh, Haryana vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-2(1), Faridabad

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1386/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Khettra Mohan Royassessment Year: 2016-17

Section 143(3)Section 234DSection 54Section 54F

deduction u/s 54, copy of purchase of residential house enclosed. Land at Village Mirzapur Faridabad Total sale consideration 1,38,55,220/- Less: Indexed cost of Acquisition or Base price of year 2000 20/3 6.66667 Circle Rate in 2000 5,75,000 4,79,167/- Indexation 4,79,167*254/100

The Indra Company Limited(As Saumya Trade & Fiscal Services P. Ltd. Merged Into the Indra Co. Ltd.), Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 12(3), Kolkata

ITA 2038/KOL/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 May 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Sonjoy Sarma & Sri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 48

assessee had worked out long-term capital loss of Rs. 5,98,62,950/- after adopting the indexed cost of acquisition of Rs. 5,98,65,479/-. The Ld. AO asked the assessee to furnish detailed justification regarding the business expediency behind the sale of shares of SRNPL at such

Dy.Commissioner of Income-Tax, 5(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Suashish Diamonds Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 5256/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

For Appellant: Mr. Shivram a/w Rahul HakaniFor Respondent: Mr. Kiran Unavekar, Sr. DR

EC8010, along with one garage out of seven garages and corresponding split equity shares in Bharat Diamond Bourse (BDB), Mumbai. For computing the indexed cost of acquisition, the assessee considered the date of tentative/provisional allotment by BDB, vide letter dated 28.01.1992 (PB-149), as the date of acquisition ... cost of acquisition amounting to ₹6,27,03,548/- for the office premises and ₹24,50,000/- for the seven garages. The total indexed cost of acquisition was accordingly computed at ₹23,82,67,253/-. However, the Assessing Officer took the view that the letter dated 28.01.1992 was merely

DCIT, Mumbai vs. Suashish Diamonds Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 5248/MUM/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 May 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

For Appellant: Mr. Shivram a/w Rahul HakaniFor Respondent: Mr. Kiran Unavekar, Sr. DR

Sushila Sudhakar Pingale, Pen vs. ITO, Ward 3, Panvel

ITA 869/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.869/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Sushila Sudhakar Pingale, V The Income Tax Officer, Pezari, Poynad Alibag, S Ward-3, Panvel. Raigad – 402109. Maharashtra. Pan: Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Madhan Thirmanpallil – Addl.Cit(Dr) – Virtual Hearing. Date Of Hearing 15/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26/05/2025

Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 48Section 54

A/301, Vedashree CHS, Plot no. E-30, Sector no.3, Kharghar, Navi Mumbai, instead of determining long term capital gains, after granting deduction for indexed cost of acquisition as per the provisions of section 48 and levying concessional tax rate as per section