“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

Late Pratapsinh Shoorji Vallabhdas, Lower Parel vs. Income Tax Officer, Mumbai

In the result, appeal is allowed

ITA 2187/MUM/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 May 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, V.P. & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth, Am

For Respondent: Shri Rajendra Joshi (Sr. DR)

Section 133(6)Section 69A

dealt with the issue of capital gains on sale of this land at para 13 and after giving deduction on account of indexed cost of acquisition brought capital gain of Rs.52,09,409/- to tax net. It is also a matter of record that tax liability on the said capital

Mrs. Chanda Runwal, Mumbai vs. ACIT Central Circle 4(1), Mumbai

ITA 6467/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankarassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Ms. Ritu Kamal Kishor, Ld. A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Mahesh Pamnani, Ld. Sr. D.R

Section 250Section 54Section 54F

form of office premises at Santacruz on dated 07.07.2017 on a total sale consideration of Rs.4,50,00,000/- with a indexed cost of acquisition at Rs.1,47,82,609/- and consequently earned the capital gain of Rs.2,99,47,240/- and out of which claimed the amount of Rs.2

ACIT, Circle-24(1), New Delhi vs. Spring Infradev Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 611/DEL/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar Us & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year:2016-17]

Section 143(3)Section 45Section 47

Bloom Inn Pvt. Limited, a related party of the assessee. The AO while doing the assessment under section 143(3) has disallowed the indexed cost of acquisition/ improvement to the tune of Rs. 15,46,46,953/- and recomputed the long-term capital gain

Elavanchalil Abdul Basheer, Kozhikode vs. ITO, Ward-2(2), Kozhikode

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

ITA 310/COCH/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 May 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Assessment Year: 2020-21 Elavanchalil Abdul Basheer .......... Appellant Oittannmakm, Koduvally, Kozhikode 673572 [Pan: Bbwpb4939D] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Kozhikode .......... Respondent Appellant By: Shri C.B.M. Warrier, Ca Respondent By: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 27.03.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 14.05.2024 O R D E R Per: Inturi Rama Rao, Am This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 23.02.2024 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2020-21. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is An Individual Deriving Income Under The Head ‘Agriculture’. The Return Of Income For Ay 2020-21 Was Filed On 21.12.2020 Declaring Income Of Rs. 4,60,00,000/-. Against The Said Return Of Income, The Assessment Was Completed By The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Kozhokode

For Appellant: Shri C.B.M. Warrier, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 2(14)(iii)

agricultural land, the AO has treated the land as non-agricultural land and accordingly the income was brought to tax after deducting the indexed cost of acquisition of Rs. 8,26,920/-. The balance amount of Rs. 4,55,83,080/- was brought to tax as short term capital gains

Shri Ketankumar Arvindbhai Amin, Chhani, Vadodara vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), Vadodara

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

ITA 482/AHD/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Santosh Kumar, Sr. D.R

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 54BSection 54F

Income Tax Act, 1961 was issued to the appellant/assessee. After taking I.T.A No. 482/Ahd/2024 Shri Ketankumar Arvindbhai Amin, A.Y. 2011-12 into consideration indexed cost of acquisition, the long term capital gain was computed at Rs. 1,15,01,000/- and the same was added to the income

Natha Pandit Raut, Pune vs. DCIT, Circle 2, Pune

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

ITA 1766/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2018-19 Natha Pandit Raut Dcit, Circle 2, Pune Office No.101, Global Port Pashankar Auto Complex, Off Mumbai Vs. Bangalore Highway, Baner, Pune - 411045 Pan: Aatpr6854L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Hirani (virtual)For Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde

Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 54Section 68

doing so, he rejected the claim of the assessee treating the capital gain from such transaction at Rs.59,14,000/- after claiming the indexed cost of acquisition of Rs.3,50,96,000/-. According to the Assessing Officer, the transactions in immovable properties were held to be business transactions

Sadhna Sharma, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward 40(4), Delhi

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

ITA 132/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmansadhna Sharma, Vs. Ito, Ward 40 (4), C/O Malik & Co. (Advisors & Advocates), Delhi. S – 258, Greater Kailash – 1, New Delhi – 110 048. (Pan : Atvp0517Q) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Ramesh Chand, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 13.05.2025 Date Of Order : 13.05.2025 O R D E R Per S.Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Cit (A)] Dated 25.07.2023 For Assessment Year 2016-17 Raising Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. That In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Appellant-Assessee Denies Her Liability To Be Assessed At An Income Of Rs.1,20,87,440/- Against The Returned Income Of Rs.6,19,650/- & Thus Denies Its Liability To Pay Tax, Interest And/Or Penalty Thereon.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ramesh Chand, Sr. DR

Section 234ASection 250

consideration. 3. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO and the Ld. CIT(A) erred in disallowing the indexed cost of acquisition of Rs.47,07,399/-. 4. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO and the Ld, CIT(A) erred ... That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO and the Ld. CIT(A) erred in disallowing the indexed cost of acquisition of Rs.8,07,057/-. 6. That the Appellant-Assessee denies its liability to charge with interest u/s 234A, 234B & 234C of the Income

Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Hyderabad vs. Narasimha Reddy Duthala, Hyderabad

ITA 1113/HYD/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 May 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

For Respondent: MS. M. Narmada, CIT-DR

Section 54Section 54F

total consideration of Rs.92,49,92,793/-. The assessee has computed long term capital gains of Rs.92,28,20,193/- after deducting indexed cost of acquisition of Rs.2,21,72,590/-. Further, out of the total long term capital gains, the assessee has claimed exemption under section ... claim of the assessee, the Assessing Officer called-upon the assessee to furnish relevant evidences including details of sale of shares, computation of indexed cost of acquisition and details of investment made for claiming exemption under section 54F of the Act. In response, the assessee has filed relevant details including

Amarjeet Singh Bhatia, Indore vs. ITO 2(1), Ind, Indore

ITA 733/IND/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore08 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshiamarjeet Singh Bhatia, Income Tax Officer बनाम/ House No.63 Panchwati, 2(1), Vs. Janki Nagar, Indore Indore (Pan: Cjcpb5689P) (Appellant) (Revenue) Assessee By Shri Soumya Bumb, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 08.05.2025 आदेश/ O R D E R

Section 144Section 147Section 246ASection 250Section 253Section 45

prays that the said addition be directed to be deleted. 4. The learned A.O. erred in not considering the not granting credit of indexed cost of acquisition. The Appellant prays that the addition so made be directed to be deleted. 5. On the fact and circumstances of the case

Hetalkumar Chandrakantbhai Patel, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 1(3)(7), Surat

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

ITA 1340/SRT/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat07 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1340/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) Hetalkumar Chandrakantbhai Patel, Vs. The Ito, A-371/3, Sundervan Raw House, Nr. Ward – 1(3)(7), Subhash Garden, Jahangirabad, Surat Bhesan, Surat - 395006 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Bkrpp5151R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) Appellant By Shri Rajesh Upadhyay, Ar Respondent By Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 02/04/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 07/05/2025

Section 250Section 253(3)

addition on account of LTCG that worked out by the AO by taking 50C value and that to without allowing deduction for index cost of acquisition as on 01.04.2001.” ITA No.1340/SRT/2024/AY.2012-13 Hetalkumar Chhandrakantbhai Patel 3. During the course of hearing, the learned Authorized Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee requested ... addition on account of LTCG that worked out by the AO by taking 50C value and that two without allowing deduction for index cost of acquisition either as on 01.04.2001 or 01/04/1981.” 3.1 Since the facts are on record, the request for modification of the earlier ground is allowed. Reliance

Shailesh Natvarlal Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-4(2)(3), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 371/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Ahmedabad06 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Ravindra, Sr.DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 270ASection 54

making payment on 18.06.2018, and claimed exemption under section 54 of the Act to that extent. 3. The Assessing Officer, however, accepted the indexed cost of acquisition based only on the value stated in the sale deed, i.e. Rs.4,79,325/-, and disallowed the claim of stamp duty of Rs.48

Shashi Prabha Singhania, Neemuch vs. Income-Tax Officer Neemuch, Neemuch

ITA 800/IND/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore05 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 253Section 44ASection 80CSection 80D

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, इंदौर न्यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE BHAGIRATH MAL BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT

Pancham Pal, Patna vs. I.T.O, Ward- 6 (4), Patna

ITA 7/PAT/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Patna02 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 250(6)

Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in sustaining the order of the Assessing Officer who has failed to allow the deduction of indexed cost of acquisition of land while computing long term capital gains. 23. For that the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in sustaining

Ajit Chaganlal Shah, Mumbai vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward -34(1)(1), Mumbai Current Jurisdiction Ward -42(2)(1) Mumbai, Mumbai

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1255/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Section 254(1)Section 55A

property as of Rs.10,11,132/-, thereby value of share of assessee is at Rs.3,37,044/-. On the basis of indexation the indexed cost of acquisition the value of assessees share is arrived at Rs.26,45,795/-, thus, the net capital gain arrived is Rs.54,205/-. During assessment

Dolly Jindal, Lucknow vs. ITO-3(5), Lucknow

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

ITA 327/LKW/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow25 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2012-13 Dolly Jindal V. The Income Tax Officer 3(5) 107, Beverly Park Apartment Lucknow New Hyderabad Lucknow Tan/Pan:Afmpj5089D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 23 04 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 25 04 2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R

Section 147Section 148

said property as under: Cost of acquisition as on 27.08.2004 : Rs.15,00,000/- Assessee’s share of cost : Rs.7,50,000/- Indexed cost of acquisition for the year under consideration(7,50,000X785/480): Rs.12,26,563/- Assessee’s share of sale consideration : Rs.25,00,000/- Capital Gain : Rs.12

Shardha Devi, Patna vs. Income Tax Officer, Patna

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

ITA 411/PAT/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Patna23 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Section 147Section 250Section 250(6)Section 45Section 48

confirmed by Ld. CIT(A), may be deleted. 7. For that the A.O. has erred in not giving credit of indexed cost of acquisition, as the immovable property in question is ancestral in nature, which clearly violates the provisions of section 48 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and therefore

Om Prakash Sharma, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-7(2), Jaipur

ITA 258/JPR/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Apr 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकरअपीलसं. / ITA. No. 258/JPR/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष / AssessmentYears : 2009-10 Shri Om Prakash Sharma 1, N.H. 8, Sanskar Bharti P.G. College Bagru 303 007 (Raj) बनाम Vs. The ITO, Ward-7(2), Jaipur प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent स्थायीलेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: BWKPS 4112 G अपीलार्थी / Appellant निर्धारिती की ओरसे / Assesseeby : Shri S.B. Natani, CA राजस्व की ओरसे /Revenue by :Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl.CIT -DR

For Appellant: Shri S.B. Natani, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl.CIT -DR a

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

WARD 7(2), JAIPUR during the year under consideration but despite this the learned AO has unlawfully not given deduction of indexed cost of acquisition. The assessee was a power of attorney holder of Smt Leela sharma who had acquired of plat on 22.06.1991 for a total ... view of this it was incumbent on the part of the learned AO to have allowed deduction of indexed cost of acquisition of Rs, 16,171/- as on 22.06.1990 which comes to Rs,6,07,550/- as on 16.09.2008. It is settled positions of law that total sale

Sanjivani Shikshan Sansthan, Jaipur vs. ITO WD 6(3), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1207/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rahoan Sogani, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR &

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250

compliance on the part of the assessee as well as information regarding cost of acquisition of the sold immovable property, the indexed cost of acquisition of the property is being taken at 'nil'. Further, the year of acquisition of the said immovable property is not available on record. Therefore, this

Vasant Shivram Madhavi, Panvel vs. ITO Ward - 5, Panvel

ITA 1716/PUN/2024[AY 2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Apr 2025

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: S/Shri Bhupendra Shah and Babulal JainFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari - CIT

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151

complete information of the properties in regard to which he derived income from capital gains, their values viz. date & cost of acquisition and indexed cost of acquisition workings with supporting evidences, date, basis and evidences for value of consideration received by him to work out his income from capital gains

Ashish Kamalakar Vaidya, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 22(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 299/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Apr 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankarashish Kamalakar Vaidya Vs. Ito – 22(1)(2) C/Of C-304, Eastern Court, Room No. 308, Pirmal Junction Of Tejpal & Chamber, Lal Baug, Parleshwar Road, Vile Parle Parel, Mumbai. East, Mumbai – 400057. Pan/Gir No. Ahopv0333J (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 154Section 250Section 48

respect of the cost of acquisition of the immovable property sold during the year under consideration. The computation of capital gains, incorporating the indexed cost of acquisition was duly included as part of the 'Statement of Facts' filed before the Ld. CIT(A). A detailed computation of the capital gains ... Assessee. However without providing opportunity of hearing Ld. CIT(A) decided the appeal filed by the assessee without granting deduction for indexed cost of acquisition while working out capital gain. Thus assessee requested that sufficient opportunity may be given and AO be directed to compute the capital gain after giving