← 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

Omprakash, Dholpur vs. ITO Ward 4 Bharatpur, Bharatpur

In the result, the both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical

ITA 1255/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Jan 2025AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Rahual Pandya, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary (JCIT-DR)
Section 147Section 148oSection 2(14)Section 271(1)(C)Section 45

purchase Rs 75000/- Stamp Duty Rs 8450/- Registration Fees Rs 2578/- Other Fees Rs 500/- Total Cost of acquisition Rs 86528/- And the Indexed Cost of Acquisition Comes to Rs.86528* 184/109=1,46,066 That the Ld. ITO, Bharatpur has not verified the basic facts of the case & with predetermined ... purchase Rs 75000/- Stamp Duty Rs 8450/- Registration Fees Rs 2578/- Other Fees Rs 500/- Total Cost of acquisition Rs 86528/- And the Indexed Cost of Acquisition Comes to Rs.86528* 184/109=1,46,066 That the Ld. ITO, Bharatpur has not verified the basic facts of the case & with predetermined

Rajendra Ganpat Jagtap, Pune vs. ITO Ward(8)(1), Pune

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2587/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri S.D. PathakFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 194HSection 194I

long term capital gains towards sale of an immovable property. It is pertinent to note that the Assessing Officer has allowed the indexed cost of acquisition at Rs.27,200/- out of sale price of Rs.2,95,00,000/- but did not allow the expenses made towards improvement of land amounting

Raja Giridhar Kumar Nimmagadda, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Circle 3(2), Hyderabad

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

ITA 287/HYD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Jan 2025AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri M. Madhusudan, C.AFor Respondent: Shri SPG Mudaliar, SR-DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 53A

liable to be IGNORED AS NON EST.IN LAW on the mere ground that the same was an UNREGISTERED DOCUMENT and hence the INDEXED COST OF ACQUISITION claimed by the appellant and the resultant CAPITAL LOSS of RS.1,97,41,203 may not be liable to be rejected and such loss

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Cirlce-2, Ludhiana vs. Rawalpindi Co-Op Cinema Society Ltd, Ludhiana

In the result, the Appeal filed by the department stands dismissed

ITA 552/CHANDI/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 180/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Rawalpindi Co-Op Vs. The Dcit, बनाम Cinema Society Ltd., Central Circle-2, Society Cinema, Ludhiana Ludhiana 141008 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaaar0233K अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 552/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 The Dcit, Vs. Rawalpindi Co-Op Cinema Central Circle-2, बनाम Society Ltd., Ludhiana Society Cinema, Ludhiana 141008 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaaar0233K अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent ( Hybrid Hearing) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal, Cit Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 03.12.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 15.01.2025

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR
Section 153C

income. b). That while doing so, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in adopting the ‘circle rate' as on 01.04.2001 and adopting the indexing cost of acquisition to the 180 & 552-Chd-2024 – Rawalpindi Coop Cinema Society ltd., Ludhiana 3 tune of Rs.13,27,51,596/- and which should have ... Assessee has taken cost of acquisition of the said Property at Rs. 7,68,51,000/- for AY 2001-02 and thus the indexed cost of acquisition at Rs. 20,74,02,720/-. The Assessee had shown Long Term Capital Loss at Rs. 4,74,02,720/-. The cost

Rawalpindi Co-Op Cinema Society Limited Society Cinema Ludhiana, Punjab, Ludhiana, Punab vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2, Ludhiana, Punjab

In the result, the Appeal filed by the department stands dismissed

ITA 180/CHANDI/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Jan 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 180/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Rawalpindi Co-Op Vs. The Dcit, बनाम Cinema Society Ltd., Central Circle-2, Society Cinema, Ludhiana Ludhiana 141008 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaaar0233K अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 552/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 The Dcit, Vs. Rawalpindi Co-Op Cinema Central Circle-2, बनाम Society Ltd., Ludhiana Society Cinema, Ludhiana 141008 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaaar0233K अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent ( Hybrid Hearing) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal, Cit Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 03.12.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 15.01.2025

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR
Section 153C

income. b). That while doing so, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in adopting the ‘circle rate' as on 01.04.2001 and adopting the indexing cost of acquisition to the 180 & 552-Chd-2024 – Rawalpindi Coop Cinema Society ltd., Ludhiana 3 tune of Rs.13,27,51,596/- and which should have ... Assessee has taken cost of acquisition of the said Property at Rs. 7,68,51,000/- for AY 2001-02 and thus the indexed cost of acquisition at Rs. 20,74,02,720/-. The Assessee had shown Long Term Capital Loss at Rs. 4,74,02,720/-. The cost

Shri Krishan Kumar Jalan, Bangalore vs. ITO, W-1, Sirsa

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 933/CHANDI/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Jan 2025AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri P.K. Prasad, Advocate &For Respondent: Dr. Vivek Vardhan, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 253Section 68

find that while making out the addition on account of capital gains the Assessing Officer himself gave credit to the assessee for indexed cost of acquisition to the extent of Rs. 11,67,821 taking the purchase price at Rs.11,00,000. Further, we find that the assessee had sold

The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Ahmedabad vs. Shri Kailash Ramavatar Goenka, Ahmedabad

ITA 67/AHD/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Jan 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr.Advocate &For Respondent: Shri R.N. Dsouza, CIT-DR &
Section 132Section 153A

Revenue) Asst. Years : 2016-17 to 2019-20 the Cost Inflation Index (CII) of the year of transfer while determining the indexed cost of acquisition and improvement. 13.3. The Revenue’s contention that there is no nexus between unaccounted receipts and expenses is rejected. The CIT(A) has correctly analysed

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Ludhiana vs. Sunil Kumar Sood, Panchkula

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 548/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl.CIT, Sr.DR
Section 118Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

Capital Gain A.Y.2017-18 5 on this. The computation made by the assessee read as under : Sale consideration Rs. 4,32,59,600/- Less indexed cost of acquisition (19070602 x 497/112) Rs. 4,31,67,862/- LTCG Rs91,738/- Less brought forward Long Term Capital Loss (-)Rs.91,738/- Taxable LTCG ... award Therefore, the appellant in his return, worked out Capital Gain as under: A.Y.2017-18 9 Sale consideration Rs. 4,32,59,600/- Less indexed cost of acquisition (19070602 x 497/112) Rs. 4,31,67,862/- LTCG Rs.91,738/- Less brought forward Long Term Capital Loss (-)Rs.91,738/- Taxable LTCG

Balaram Janu Bhoir, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward, 3(1), Kalyan

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

ITA 4987/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Smt. Renu Jauhribalaram Janu Bhoir V/S. Ito, Ward, 3(1), Kalyan बनाम Bhoir Chawl, Bhoir Sadan, 2Nd Floor, Rani Mansion, Retibunder Cross Road, Murbad Rod, Kalyan, Thakurli (W), Dist. Thane-421301 Dist. Thane-421202 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Arrpb3139P Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri V. G. GindeFor Respondent: Ms. Monika H. Pandep
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 151ASection 2(47)Section 250

capital, if any, had to be calculated after considering only 1/3rd share in the hands of the appellant and after reducing the indexed cost of acquisition from the amount received as consideration. Since no verification of assessee’s claim has been made before

Ajay Agarwal, Jaipur vs. CIT (It), Delhi-1, CIT(It) Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 637/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: MS Suhani Meharwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 129Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 195Section 263

under: 5 Ajay Agarwal vs. CIT (IT) The aforesaid property was acquired by the assessee through payments made in installments. The assessee claimed indexed cost of acquisition for the various financial years in which installments were paid by him. Considering the submission filed by the assessee so far as well ... declaring Long Term Capital Loss of Rs. 1,15,19,069/- on account of higher side of indexed cost of acquisition and claimed refund of Rs. 98,74,640/- on account of excess TDS deducted by the buyer of the property. The ld. AO during the assessment proceedings, on perusal

Avinash Saini, Gurgaon vs. Ward 1(5), Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 175/DEL/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2015-16] Deputy Commissioner Of Ms. Meenu Shukla, Income Tax, Circle-14(2), C-35, Sector-30, Room No.323, Cr Building, Vs Gautam Budh Nagar, Noida, I.P. Estate, New Delhi-110002 Uttar Pradesh-201301 Pan-Afyps8002B Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Ruchesh Sinha, Adv. Ms. Monalisha Maity, Adv. Revenue By Ms. Monika Singh, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 28.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17.12.2025

Section 143(3)Section 2(47)Section 50CSection 54

Rs.2,42,65,406/- (taking full value of consideration as per section 50C of the Act at Rs.2,77,24,000/-, against the indexed cost of acquisition of Rs.34,58,594/-). The appellant claimed exemption u/s 54 of the Act for Rs.2,22,50,000/-, shown as reinvestment for purchase

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Ahmedabad vs. Devraj Harshadray Patel, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 93/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri P. F. Jain, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B. P. Srivastava, Sr. D.R
Section 234Section 54BSection 68

Through L/h. Devraj H. Patel) vs. ITO Asst.Year –2016-17 - 5– the A.O. has added total sale consideration without giving effect of the indexed cost of acquisition of the said property. The appellant has submitted the sale deed, valuation report, proof of agricultural activity. In view of the above documents ... remand furnished by the A.O., it is held that the appellant is entitled to get benefit of the indexed cost of acquisition while computing the capital gain arose with regard to sale of the aforementioned property.” 7. Even Ld. D.R. has accepted that the aforesaid addition is liable

Devraj Harshadrai Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT., Circle-3(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 1093/AHD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri P. F. Jain, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B. P. Srivastava, Sr. D.R
Section 234Section 54BSection 68

Through L/h. Devraj H. Patel) vs. ITO Asst.Year –2016-17 - 5– the A.O. has added total sale consideration without giving effect of the indexed cost of acquisition of the said property. The appellant has submitted the sale deed, valuation report, proof of agricultural activity. In view of the above documents ... remand furnished by the A.O., it is held that the appellant is entitled to get benefit of the indexed cost of acquisition while computing the capital gain arose with regard to sale of the aforementioned property.” 7. Even Ld. D.R. has accepted that the aforesaid addition is liable

Late Smt. Ramilaben Harshadrai Patel(Through L/H Devraj H.Patel), Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 1092/AHD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri P. F. Jain, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B. P. Srivastava, Sr. D.R
Section 234Section 54BSection 68

Through L/h. Devraj H. Patel) vs. ITO Asst.Year –2016-17 - 5– the A.O. has added total sale consideration without giving effect of the indexed cost of acquisition of the said property. The appellant has submitted the sale deed, valuation report, proof of agricultural activity. In view of the above documents ... remand furnished by the A.O., it is held that the appellant is entitled to get benefit of the indexed cost of acquisition while computing the capital gain arose with regard to sale of the aforementioned property.” 7. Even Ld. D.R. has accepted that the aforesaid addition is liable

Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. JCIT, Special Range- 4, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee’s for AYs 2014-15 to 2016-17

ITA 6766/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S., Judicialmember

For Appellant: Shri Sachit Jolly, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu,CITDR

material placed on record. We observed that assessee has sold some land for a total consideration of Rs.68,83,50,000/- and claimed indexed cost of acquisition of original cost of the land at Rs.20,69,46,071/- and determined the indexed cost of acquisition at Rs.55 ... value of freehold land which assessee has subtracted during the year upon sale is not acceptable and considering the fact that the index cost of acquisition has to be calculated from the actual cost of land acquired by the assessee in FY 1999- 00. In the absence of any proper

Addl. CIT, Special Range- 4, New Delhi vs. Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee’s for AYs 2014-15 to 2016-17

ITA 6487/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S., Judicialmember

For Appellant: Shri Sachit Jolly, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu,CITDR

material placed on record. We observed that assessee has sold some land for a total consideration of Rs.68,83,50,000/- and claimed indexed cost of acquisition of original cost of the land at Rs.20,69,46,071/- and determined the indexed cost of acquisition at Rs.55 ... value of freehold land which assessee has subtracted during the year upon sale is not acceptable and considering the fact that the index cost of acquisition has to be calculated from the actual cost of land acquired by the assessee in FY 1999- 00. In the absence of any proper

Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addlcit, Special Range-4, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee’s for AYs 2014-15 to 2016-17

ITA 6508/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S., Judicialmember

For Appellant: Shri Sachit Jolly, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu,CITDR

material placed on record. We observed that assessee has sold some land for a total consideration of Rs.68,83,50,000/- and claimed indexed cost of acquisition of original cost of the land at Rs.20,69,46,071/- and determined the indexed cost of acquisition at Rs.55 ... value of freehold land which assessee has subtracted during the year upon sale is not acceptable and considering the fact that the index cost of acquisition has to be calculated from the actual cost of land acquired by the assessee in FY 1999- 00. In the absence of any proper

Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addlcit, Special Range-4, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee’s for AYs 2014-15 to 2016-17

ITA 6507/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S., Judicialmember

For Appellant: Shri Sachit Jolly, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu,CITDR

material placed on record. We observed that assessee has sold some land for a total consideration of Rs.68,83,50,000/- and claimed indexed cost of acquisition of original cost of the land at Rs.20,69,46,071/- and determined the indexed cost of acquisition at Rs.55 ... value of freehold land which assessee has subtracted during the year upon sale is not acceptable and considering the fact that the index cost of acquisition has to be calculated from the actual cost of land acquired by the assessee in FY 1999- 00. In the absence of any proper

Addl.CIT, Special Range-4, New Delhi vs. Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee’s for AYs 2014-15 to 2016-17

ITA 6298/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S., Judicialmember

For Appellant: Shri Sachit Jolly, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu,CITDR

material placed on record. We observed that assessee has sold some land for a total consideration of Rs.68,83,50,000/- and claimed indexed cost of acquisition of original cost of the land at Rs.20,69,46,071/- and determined the indexed cost of acquisition at Rs.55 ... value of freehold land which assessee has subtracted during the year upon sale is not acceptable and considering the fact that the index cost of acquisition has to be calculated from the actual cost of land acquired by the assessee in FY 1999- 00. In the absence of any proper

Addl. CIT, Special Range- 4, New Delhi vs. Hindustan Coca- Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee’s for AYs 2014-15 to 2016-17

ITA 6297/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S., Judicialmember

For Appellant: Shri Sachit Jolly, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu,CITDR

material placed on record. We observed that assessee has sold some land for a total consideration of Rs.68,83,50,000/- and claimed indexed cost of acquisition of original cost of the land at Rs.20,69,46,071/- and determined the indexed cost of acquisition at Rs.55 ... value of freehold land which assessee has subtracted during the year upon sale is not acceptable and considering the fact that the index cost of acquisition has to be calculated from the actual cost of land acquired by the assessee in FY 1999- 00. In the absence of any proper