“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

Mr. Roshan A Kudalkar Through Legal Heir Mr. Swaroop R Kudalkar, Khed, Ratnagiri vs. ITO, Ward-3, Ratnagiri

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

ITA 2275/PUN/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Dec 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: MS.ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member)

Section 147Section 148Section 243ASection 250Section 250(4)

incorrect since entire sale consideration is taxed in the hands of Appellant even there being other two joint owners and also without considering indexed cost of acquisition. Accordingly, the addition so made be kindly deleted and the Appellant be granted Just and proper relief in this respect. 5. Without prejudice ... meaning thereby assessee’s share is 1/3rd. The impugned land was a hereditary land. The cost of acquisition was Rs.6,25,000/- and index cost of acquisition Rs.44,43,750/-. Therefore, Long Term Capital Gain for the entire land comes to Rs.1,06,250/-. Assessee’s share is 1/3rd

Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle7, Pune vs. Kruti Lalitkumar Jain, Pune

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

ITA 1563/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S PathakFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 54BSection 54F

shown sale consideration of Rs.10 crores on which long term capital gain has been computed at Rs.6,55,84,209/- after deducting the indexed cost of acquisition of Rs.3,07,79,191/- and sales expenses of Rs.36,36,600/-. From the details furnished by the assessee, the Assessing Officer noted ... dispute that such long term capital gain which has been worked out at Rs.6,55,84,209/- is after the deduction of the indexed cost of acquisition and the expenses of Rs.36,36,600/-. Referring to pages 4 to 26 of the paper book, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee

Rambilas Radhakishan Joshi, Bhayander vs. ITO, Ward 2(2), Thane

ITA 614/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Dec 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Rambilas Radhakishan Joshi, Ito, Ward 2(2), 201, Shanti Darshan, Station Road, Room No. 26, B Wing, 6Th Floor, Vs. Bhayander (W), Ashar It Park, Road No. 16Z, Dist. Thane-401101. Wagle Ind. Estate, Thane-400604. Pan No. Adgpj 1395 Q Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: 17/12/2024

Section 2(14)(iii)Section 48Section 68

deduction for indexed cost of The addition without granting the deduction for indexed cost of The addition without granting the deduction for indexed cost of acquisition as per section 48 of the I.T. Act, 1961 was acquisition as per section 48 of the I.T. Act, 1961 was acquisition ... without further (without prejudice) brining to tax sale consideration without further (without prejudice) brining to tax sale consideration without grant of deduction for indexed cost of acquisition as per sec. 48 was grant of deduction for indexed cost of acquisition as per sec. 48 was grant of deduction for indexed

Rai Bhagwan Das Bagla Bahadurs Marwari Hindu Hospital, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 49(3) Now, Ward - 44(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1119/KOL/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Dec 2024AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Rai Bhagwan Das Bagla Ito, Ward-49(3), Bahadurs Marwari Hindu 3, Govt. Place (West), Hospital Kolkata-700001, Vs. 1, R.N. Mukherjee Road, Martin West Bengal Burn House, Kolkata-700001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aactr1297C Assessee By : Shri Soumitra Choudhary, Ar Revenue By : Shri Prabhakar Prakash Ranjan, Dr Date Of Hearing: 05.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.12.2024

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhary, ARFor Respondent: Shri Prabhakar Prakash Ranjan, DR

Section 142(1)Section 45Section 50Section 50C

consideration ₹4,11,00,000/- Fair Market Value ₹9,03,42,619/ (u/s 50C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act)) Less: Indexed Cost of acquisition Cost of acquisition as on 01.04.1981 ₹84,71,600 X 1081/100 Rs.9,15,77,996 Long Term Capital Gain ... held as under: “8. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. Assessee had worked out the indexed cost of acquisition of 12.97 Kattah of land out of total 27.96 Kattach of land sold by him taking Rs.3,50,000/- per Kattah as fair market

Nagarbhai Amthabhai Prajapati, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-3(3)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1707/AHD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 54

Without prejudice to the above and in the alternative, both the lower authorities have erred in computing taxable capital gain without considering the indexed cost of acquisition and exemption u/s 54 towards investment of RS. 1,94,60,000/ It is, therefore, prayed that the addition of Rs.2

Rakesh Kumar Gupta, Bareilly vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(3), Bareilly

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

ITA 502/LKW/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow13 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year:2014-15 Rakesh Kumar Gupta V. The Income Tax Officer House No.51, Kaharan Ward 2(3) Nawabganj, Bareilly (U.P) Bareilly Tan/Pan:Aaupg6815 (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 05 12 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 13 12 2024 O R D E R

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

Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 245(3)Section 50CSection 50C(2)

assessee for the year under consideration as under: Full value of consideration u/s. 50C of the Act : 84,23,000/- Less: Indexed cost of acquisition 32,50,000/632X939 : 48,28,710/- Long Term Capital Gains : 35,94,290/- 3. The AO completed the assessment under section

Neeraj Bhardwaj, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 39(1), New Delhi

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 1086/DEL/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. M. Balaganeshita No. 1086/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Neeraj Bhardwaj, Vs Income Tax Officer, H.No. 314, Main Chowk, Near Pnb, Ward-39(1), Burari, Delhi-110084 New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Apdpb0280P Assessee By : Sh. Tushal Gupta, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Akhilesh Kumar Yadav, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 05.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 13.12.2024 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2014-15, Arises Against The Cit(A)-13, Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Apl/S/250/2019-20/1024600279(1) Dated 03.02.2020 In Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: Sh. Tushal Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Akhilesh Kumar Yadav, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 149Section 150(1)Section 150(2)Section 250Section 251(1)Section 54

asset for Rs.50,00,000/- in A.Y. 2007-08 which stood sold in A.Y. 2012-13 for Rs.1,54,60,000/-. The admitted indexed cost of acquisition thereof was Rs.77,31,397/- which resulted in net long term capital gains of Rs.77,68,603/-. We further note that the assessee

Badri Narayanan, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-2(1), Coimbatore

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

ITA 1959/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1959/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 Shri Badri Narayanan, The Income Tax Officer, A2, Aishwaryam Apartment, Vs. Non-Corporate Ward -2(1), Tansi Nagar, Coimbatore. Velachery, Chennai – 600 042. Pan: Afmpb 8640N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Ms. N.V. Krishnan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Anitha, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11.12.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 12.12.2024

For Appellant: Ms. N.V. Krishnan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Anitha, Addl.CIT

Section 142Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 54

return of income, the assessee had claimed Rs.1,66,71,813/- and Rs.4,32,400/- as indexed cost of improvement and indexed cost of acquisition respectively. The assessee in the return of income filed pursuant to notice u/s.148 of the Act, had also claimed deduction u/s.54 of the Act amounting ... Rs.12,95,787/-. The assessee was directed to explain the indexed cost of acquisition, indexed cost of improvement and deduction u/s.54 of the Act. The assessee did not respond to the notices issued u/s.142 of the Act (except for one notice issued on 16.03.2022, wherein assessee sought for adjournment

ACIT-1(1)(1), Mumbai. vs. Bennett Property Holdings Company Limited, Mumbai

ITA 557/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Section 10(38)Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A(2)Section 32(1)Section 72A(2)Section 72A(4)

includible in arriving at book profits under Section 115JB of the Act is the long-term capital gain arrived at based on the indexed cost of acquisition of fixed assets and the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not accepting the same. 9. On the facts and in the circumstances ... Section 115JB of the Act (iii) Rejection of Assessee's claim of substitution of long term capital gain (computed by taking index cost of acquisition) in place of the profit on sale of capital asset appearing in the statement of Profit & Loss Account for the purpose of computing Book Profits

ACIT-1(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Bennett Property Holdings Company Limited, Mumbai

ITA 556/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal &For Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya &

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A(2)Section 32(1)Section 72A(2)Section 72A(4)

includible in arriving at book profits under Section 115JB of the Act is the long-term capital gain arrived at based on the indexed cost of acquisition of fixed assets and the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not accepting the same. 9. On the facts and in the circumstances ... Section 115JB of the Act (iii) Rejection of Assessee’s claim of substitution of long term capital gain (computed by taking index cost of acquisition) in place of the profit on sale of capital asset appearing in the statement of Profit & Loss Account for the purpose of computing Book Profits

Bennett Property Holdings Company Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax - 1 (1) (1), Mumbai

ITA 502/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

For Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya & Ms. Kaveeta Punit Kaushik Date Conclusion of hearing

Section 10(38)Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A(2)Section 32(1)Section 72A(2)Section 72A(4)

Dhirajkumar Sohanlal Thukral, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle 17(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 3865/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang & Shri B.R. Baskaran: A.Y : 2013-14 Dhirajkumar Sohanlal Thukral Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income 33/34, Garden View Apartment, Tax, Circle 17(1) Mumbai. Road No. 29, Sion (E), (Respondent) Mumbai 400 022. Pan : Aabpt5208Q (Appellant)

For Appellant: Ms. Kinjal BhutaFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 32Section 54F

calculated the total sale consideration at Rs.5,72,84,000/-. After making an allowance for the indexed cost of improvement and the indexed cost of acquisition, the capital gains were calculated at Rs.4,87,83,497/-. The assessee claimed deduction under Section 54F of the Act of Rs.2

Bennett Property Holdings Company Limited, Mumbai vs. Additional -Joint -Deputy-Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax- ITO, Delhi

ITA 302/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal & Shri Fenil Bhatt For theFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya & Ms. Kaveeta Punit Kaushik Date Conclusion of hearing

Section 10(38)Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A(2)Section 32(1)Section 72A(2)Section 72A(4)

Flsmidth Private Limited, Chennai vs. PCIT- 1, Chennai

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

ITA 1636/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1636/Chny/2024 िनधा:रण वष: /Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Flsmidth Pvt. Ltd., The Principal Commissioner Of No.34, Egatoor, Kelambakkam Vs. Income Tax-1, Rajiv Gandhi Salai, Chennai. Chennai – 603 103. [Pan: Aaacf 4997N]

For Appellant: Shri S.P. Chidambaram, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 14ASection 263

sale of land and building of Rs.21,29,63,658/-. The assessee in the computation of Long term capital gain has reduced the indexed cost of acquisition of land by taking inflation index cost at 150 for acquisition of land as well as registration and other charges. However ... have been paid only in 2011, rather than the purchase year in 1987-88. The assessment was reopened to examine for computation of indexed cost of acquisition on registration for the year 2011, rather than 1987-88 taken by the assessee. However, the A.O without verifying the purchase deed

Pramila Keshav Dalvi, Sindhudurg vs. Income Tax Officer, Kudal

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

ITA 1783/PUN/2024[AY 2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Dec 2024

Bench: Shri Manish Borad

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144B(8)Section 148

with others entire gain cannot be taxed in the hands of the appellant. d. The appellant ought to have been allowed deduction of indexed cost of acquisition and the capital gain ought to have been taxed as Long Term Capital Gain, if any. The appellant craves leave

Zahid Hasan Khan, Yamuna Nagar vs. ITO, Ward -5, Yamuna Nagar

In the result, ground no. 4 of the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 122/CHANDI/2023[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Dec 2024AY 2007-08

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

For Appellant: Shri Dhruv Goel, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 2Section 250Section 54BSection 54F

land. 3. That the learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the actions of Ld AO of computing indexed cost of acquisition of the land at Rs. 6,41,457/- as against Rs. 1,10,14,333/- claimed by the assessee. 4, That the learned ... secondly, denial of claim of deduction under section 54B of the Act. In this regard, it was submitted that the assessee has claimed index cost of acquisition of Rs. 1,10,14,333/- whereas the AO has allowed the index cost of acquisition only to the extent

Laxmi Pati Sharma, Gurgaon vs. Income Tax Officer, Income Tax Department Noida

In the result, impugned order is set aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2764/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Nov 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं.2764/िद"ी/2024 (िन.व. 2012-13) Laxmi Pati Sharma, L 16/2A, Dlf Phase-2, Haryana 122022 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aosps-5811-H

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Shivani Bansal , Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148

Rs.1,65,00,000/-. The assessee’s 1/3rd share in the said sale consideration was Rs.55,00,000/-. The Assessing Officer estimated indexed cost of acquisition at Rs.22,00,000/- and made addition of Long Term Capital Gains Rs.33,00,000/-. 3. Against the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal

Prakash Sharma, Ghaziabad vs. ITO Ward 2(2)(1), Ghaziabad

In the result, impugned order is set aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 730/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Nov 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं.2764/िद"ी/2024 (िन.व. 2012-13) Laxmi Pati Sharma, L 16/2A, Dlf Phase-2, Haryana 122022 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aosps-5811-H

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Shivani Bansal , Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148

Bhogilal Bhailalbhai Patel, Vadodara vs. The Pr. CIT-1, Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 613/AHD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Nov 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 613/Ahd/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16) बनाम/ Bhogilal Bhailalbhai The Pr. Commissioner Of Patel Income Tax-1 Vs. 475/2, Sagar Faliya, At & Vadodara Post Bhayali, Vadodara - 391410 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Bkkpp3136R (Appellant) .. (Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri Hemant Suthar, A.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Samir Tekriwal, Cit. Dr 19/11/2024 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 28/11/2024

For Appellant: Shri Hemant Suthar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Samir Tekriwal, CIT. DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54BSection 54F

revise the assessment order as the Ld. A.O. has wrongly allowed the amount of Rs. 27,47,730/-, being the cost of acquisition (indexed cost of acquisition) without due application of mind and without making necessary reference to DVO. The order of the Pr. CIT being erroneous ... effectuated in the computation of income. The Ld. PCIT had found that the order of the AO was erroneous in respect of indexed cost of acquisition of Rs.27,47,730/- as claimed by the assessee, which was allowed in the computation of income. The AO in the assessment order

Shri Deepak Suresh Gadge, Nagpur vs. Dy. CIT, Circle-1, Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee partly allowed

ITA 23/NAG/2018[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur28 Nov 2024AY 2013-2014

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

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. MoryaniFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

Section 234A

appellant disclosed inform from ―Capital Gains‖ on sale of capital assets as detailed below Total sale consideration Rs. 6,85,03,200/- Less : Indexed Cost of Acquisition Rs. 2,25,90,000/- Capital Gain Rs. 4,59,13,200/- Income tax Officer vide order under section 143(3) dated 21/03/2016 ... taxable as capital gain. Thus, the assessee is successful in pleading that the income is taxable as capital gain with consistent deduction towards indexed cost of acquisition for ` 40,09,499. Accordingly, grounds no.1 to 4, raised by the assessee are allowed. 12. Ground no.5, relates to charging of interest