“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

Smt. Santuben Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-4(2)(3), Ahmedabad

ITA 2057/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr.Brr Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Mohit Balani, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Mamta Singh, Sr. DR

Section 234ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 48

Learned Assessing Officer in making an addition of f 45,66,671/- towards short-term capital gains without granting the benefit of indexed cost of acquisition and improvement, thereby ignoring the provisions of Section 48 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. Learned CIT(A) has erred

Kalyan Sahay Meena, Jaipur vs. Assessing Officer, Jaipur

ITA 16/JPR/2025[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Feb 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM आयकरअपील सं./ITA No. 16/JP/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष / Assessment Year: 2008-09 Shri Kalyan Sahay Meena बनाम The ITO Aman Dhar Ki Dhani, Terminal-2, Vs. Ward 7(2) Sawai Getor, C-Block, Siddharth Nagar, Jagatpura स्थायीलेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.:BFWPM 0124 D Jaipur अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओरसे / Assessee by : Shri Tarun Mittal, CA राजस्व की ओरसे /Revenue by: Sh. Manoj Kumar, JCIT-DR. सुनवाई की ता

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Manoj Kumar, JCIT-DR

Section 147Section 50C

Rs.1,84,03,432/-, while taking into consideration the sale consideration of the immovable property u/s 50C of the Act, and deducting Indexed Cost of Acquisition to the tune of Rs.27,550/-. 4. Since the impugned order was passed by the ld.CIT(A) of 2-03-2023, and the appeal

Sanjeev Kumar Kathuria, Yamuna Nagar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1, Yamunanagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 329/CHANDI/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Jain, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(3)

received 5,01,00,000/- Less: Cost of acquisition with indexation 4,51,80,560/- Long Term Capital Gains 49,19,440/- The indexed cost of acquisition was taken by taking the base year as 2001. You furnished a Valuation Report of the property in support of the Fair Market ... land : Rs.1,33,30,000/- Add Cost of construction : Rs. 32,80,500/- Total cost of acquisition : Rs.1,66,10,500/- Indexed cost of acquisition : Rs. 4,51,80,560/- Long Term Capital Gain : Rs. 49,19,440/- (ii) However, reference to the records shows that the FMV was inflated

Mohammed Farhan Mohammed Yunus Attarwala, Mumbai vs. Ward 20(2)(1), NFAC Delhi, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6819/MUM/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra Shah, ARFor Respondent: 18.02.2025

Section 234Section 270A

sale of immovable property located at 51 East, Bandra, Mumbai. The AO noticed that the assessee has claimed indexed cost of acquisition and improvement while computing the LTCG. The AO called on the assessee to furnish the documentary evidences to substantiate the deductions claimed from the LTCG. The assessee ... property was made only on 21.08.2019. The AO further noticed that the assessee has sold the property on 19.06.2019 and has claimed the indexed cost of acquisition to declare the difference as LTCG. Since the final payment and the possession was given to the Mohammed Farhan Mohammed Yunus Attarwala. assessee

Mr. Jobanji Thakor, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO. Ward-3(2)(2), Ahmedabad

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 264/AHD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.264/Ahd/2019 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Mr. Jobanji Thakor The Ito F-40, Abugiri Society बनाम / Ward-3(2)(2) Tal. Daskroi, Jagatpur V/S. Ahmedabad Ahmedabad - 382 470 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aknpt 2930 M (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Mehul K. Patel, Ar Revenue By : Shri A.P. Singh, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 19/02/2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 26/02/2025 आदेश/Order Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Ahmedabad [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)"] Dated 28.12.2018, Confirming The Assessment Order Dated 29.12.2017 Passed By The Assessing Officer [Hereinafter Referred To As “Ao”] Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act"] For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16.

For Appellant: Shri Mehul K. Patel, ARFor Respondent: Shri A.P. Singh, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 54B

Valuation Officer (DVO) for determining the fair market value of the land as on 01.04.1981. The DVO's report dated 26.12.2017 assessed the indexed cost of acquisition of the sold property at Rs.5,96,000/-. ITA No.264/Ahd/2019 Mr. Jobanji Thakor vs. The ITO Asst. Year ... LTCG as submitted by the assessee and difference due to revision was as follows: Particulars Amount (Rs.) Sale consideration of immovable property Less: Indexed cost of acquisition (as per DVO report dated 26.12.2017) Less: Cost of transfer (Stamp duty, brokerage, legal expenses, etc.) Net capital gain before exemption Less: Deduction

Jaiprakash L. Singh, Mumbai vs. ACIT 31(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands

ITA 1301/MUM/2024[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Feb 2025AY 2003-04

Bench: Hon'Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 234ASection 250

Assessee has 1/5th share in the land which works out to be (Rs.17,56,68,000/5)= 3,51,33,600/- Less : Indexed Cost of Acquisition (Note 2) Total land as per agreement 74,139.40sqmtrs. (7,98,036.50sq.ft.) Total FMV of land as on | Rs.18,35,48,395/- 01.04.1981 Value ... considered as fair market value as on 01.04.1981. And hence as per the order of CIT(A) dated 28.05.2014 and valuation report the index cost of acquisition comes to Rs.8,82,69,984/- as enumerated and detailed in the following chart. Total FMV of Land as on 01.04.1981 | Rs.18

Sharad Ramgonda Patil, Sangli vs. I.T.O, Ward-1, Sangli

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

ITA 2566/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri B.C. MalakarFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai, Addl CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148

quite pertinent to note that, at the time of filing return of income for the year under consideration, the appellant had claimed indexed cost of acquisition to the tune of Rs.15,89,681/- against the sale consideration and disclosed the long-term capital gain ... value adopted for the purpose of stamp duty as full value of consideration, however, the Learned Assessing Officer has not considered the indexed cost of acquisition, even after it was readily available in the return of income filed by the appellant and made impugned addition of Rs.1

Late Pravinchandra Dwarkadas Dalal (Legal Heir Hiten Pravinchandra Dalal), Mumbai vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax It Circle 42(3)(1) Erstwhile Circle 33(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5367/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar – Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 32Section 50

appellant for more than 3 years, the appellant has offered the gains on the same as Long term capital gains after claiming indexed cost of acquisition on the WDV as on 31.03.2003. d. Further, the appellant has brought Long Term Capital Loss of Rs. 1,63,34,215% which ... Long Term Capital Gains” since he held this property for more than three years. While arriving at long term capital gain, assessee claimed index cost of acquisition of the WDV of Rs.33,02,106/- as on 31.03.2003. 5.2. While completing the assessment, ld. Assessing Officer held that gain arrived

Ramesh Munaiah Chintakunta, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-3(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 548/HYD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao ARFor Respondent: Shri Srinath Sadanala, DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 50C

Long Term Capital Gains in respect of the property at Nellore, that the actual sale consideration was only ₹ 9 lakhs whereas the indexed cost of acquisition was ₹ 15,72,774/- and thereby resulting in the capital loss of ₹ 6,72,774/-, but the learned Assessing Officer wrongly considered the sale ... market value adoption as per SRO value. 8. On a perusal of the impugned order, we find that in respect of the indexed cost of acquisition in respect of this property, assessee computed the same at ₹ 15,62,774/-, whereas the learned Assessing Officer adopted

Geetadevi Badrinarayan Panpaliya, Nagpur vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Nagpur

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 477/NAG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur17 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh LoyaFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 48Section 50CSection 54Section 54E

Valuation Authority Deemed value of asset being greater of 2,43,75,000 the above two (sec. 50C) Less: Indexed Cost of Acquisition (235200 x 939/100) 22,08,528 (Cost as on 01/04/1981 – ` 2,35,000 Indexed Cost of improvement

Bhimabai Ramkrishna Gharat, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward 1(1), Thane

The appeal is allowed

ITA 6981/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang & Shri Amarjit Singh: A.Y. : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Nilesh KariyaFor Respondent: Ms. Monika H. Pande

Section 142(1)Section 148Section 50C

relevant provisions which have not been considered by the learned CIT(A). He submitted that identical issues about valuation of land and indexed cost of acquisition (which go to the root of the matter) would arise in the appeals filed by Amar Ramkrishna Gharat and Ravi Ramkrishna Gharat. He, therefore

Rekha Chandrakant Padalkar, Kandivali (East) vs. Income Tax Officer 42(3)(2), Mumbai

Appeal is allowed

ITA 6554/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am) Rekha Chandrakant Padalkar Ito 42(3)(2) 701/702 B Wing, Gokul Kautilya Bhavan Paradise, Thakur Complex Vs. Bandra Kurla Kandivali East, Mumbai Complex, Bandra 400 101. East, Mumbai-51. Pan : Awdpp8597Q Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Nihar Ranjan SamalFor Respondent: Shri Dinar Prakash Daptari

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 50CSection 54

invalid and deleted in toto. Cost of Acquisition of Rs.586,677 7. The learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the restricting of the indexed cost of acquisition without any basis to an arbitrary amount of Rs,500,000. The Appellant prays that the entire indexed cost of acquisition be allowed

Yogesh Himatlal Thakker, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad vs. Income Tax Officerward 4(1)(1), Ahmedabad, Ambawadi

In the result, the order of the Ld

ITA 1362/AHD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 Feb 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Thakker, CAFor Respondent: Shri Yogesh Mishra, Sr DR

Section 131(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 36Section 48

head ‘Capital Gain’. As this is long term gain, the assessee worked out long term capital gain at Rs.24,98,113/- after considering indexed cost of acquisition as provided in Section 48 of the Act. The CPC has correctly computed long term capital gain in the intimation sent

Sockalingam (HUF), Madurai vs. ACIT, Cirrcle - 1, Madurai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1849/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S.R.Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 1849/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Assistant Commissioner Of Sockalingam (Huf), V. Income Tax, Plot No.423, Kk Nagar East, Circle -1, 9Th Street, Madurai – 625 020. Madurai. [Pan: Aaxhs-5962-C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. T. Vasudevan, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06.02.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11.02.2025 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 50(1)Section 50CSection 50C(2)Section 54F

Rs.6,16,66,667/-. The LTCG was computed at Rs.1,47,99,538/- after reducing the commission paid of Rs.13.32 lacs and indexed cost of acquisition of Rs.68,97,143/- and claiming deduction u/s.54F of Rs.3,85,91,226/-. The assessment was completed u/s.143(3) :-4-: ITA. No:1849/Chny/2024 ... Crores. The LTCG was computed at :-13-: ITA. No:1849/Chny/2024 Rs.1,47,99,538/- after reducing the commission paid of Rs.13.32 lacs and indexed cost of acquisition of Rs.68,97,143/- and claiming deduction u/s.54F of Rs.3,85,91,226/-. The assessment was completed u/s.143

Venkataram Spinning Mills Private Limited, Guntur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Guntur

In the result, assessee appeal is partly allowed

ITA 87/VIZ/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam04 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Balakrishnan. Sassessment Year: 2017-18 Venkataram Spinning Mills Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 2(1), Private Limited, Guntur. Guntur. Pan : Aafcv2151H. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Gvn Hari, Ar. Revenue By: Shri Ld.Dr. Satyasai Rath, Cit- Dr. Date Of Hearing: 20.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 04.02.2025

For Appellant: Shri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ld.DR. Satyasai Rath, CIT-

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 2(47)Section 45

land was covered by section 45 of the Act and accordingly, the AO brought to tax the LTCG after allowing the indexed cost of acquisition. As no details about the land being an agricultural land were either produced before the AO or during the appellate proceedings and hence, the decision

S.R.P. Infocom Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 4(4), Kolkata

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

ITA 1452/KOL/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Feb 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, VICE PRESIDENT SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250

which brokerage @ 1% Rs. 3,45,856/- was reduced. The assessee has purchased the shares on 22.4.2013 for Rs. 94,99,974/- and indexed cost of acquisition was Rs. 1,03,39,806/- which was reduced and balance amount of Rs. 2,38,79,877/- was offered to tax. Without

Reliance Generators Private Limited, Chennai vs. Income Tax Officer, NFAC

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

ITA 2906/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member), SHRI JAGADISH (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Pushpa Hemachand, JCIT

Section 133(6)Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148

basis of facts narrated in the sale deed, calculated the Long Term Capital Gain at Rs. 83,73,740/- by taking the indexed cost of acquisition at Rs.8,26,260/-. Accordingly, the AO completed the assessment proceedings u/s 144 r.w.s 147 by the making addition

Madhuben Harkishandas Patel, Surat vs. ITO, Ward2(2)(1), Surat

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

ITA 1085/SRT/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat21 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1085/Srt/2024 (Ay 2016-17) (Physical Court Hearing) Madhuben Harkishandas Patel Income Tax Officer, Ward- 65, Vav Faliyu, Village-Sandhiyer, 2(2)(1), Surat, Aayakar Bhavan, बनाम Surat-394 130 Majura Gate, Surat-395 001 Vs [Pan : Azfpp 1116 Q] अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

Section 147Section 148Section 151ASection 254(1)Section 55A

well as law on subject, ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming action of AO in making addition of Rs.1,36,47,625/- being indexed cost of acquisition when no reference to DVO is made u/s 55A. 5.On facts and circumstances of the case as well

Rimple Saxena, Panvel vs. ITO Ward 2, Panvel

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2413/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2413/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Rimple Saxena, Vs. Ito, Ward-2, Sai Villa, Plot No.114, Panvel Flat No.102, Sector-I, Vijay Marg, New Panvel – 410 206 Maharashtra Pan : Bdjps3014H Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Ajinkya M. VaishampayanFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 250(6)

above facts and circumstances, assuming that the possession of the property might have been delivered after last payment for purchase of property, the indexed cost of acquisition is taken from the F.Y.2003-04 and Long Term Capital Gain in re- computed accordingly. Sale Consideration 1,02,00,000/- Indexed cost

Madan Lal Choudhary, Jaipur vs. ITO-7(1), Jaipur

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

ITA 1059/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Sisodiya (Adv.)For Respondent: Shri Anup Singh (Addl.CIT)

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 48

facts and in law in confirming the addition made by the AO who had arbitrarily rejected the explanation of assessee and not considered Indexed cost of acquisition of Rs. 75,86,705/- u/s 48 in computing capital gain. 3. The Ld CIT(A) has erred on facts