“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

Naresh Jeramdas Idnani, Mumbai vs. ITO, Int Tax Ward-2(2)(1), Mumbai

Accordingly, Ground No.1.1. to 1.3. raised by the Appellant are allowed while all the grounds raised by the Appellant are dismissed as having being rendered infructuous

ITA 3787/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tarang Mehta / Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 154(7)Section 234D

Flat at Khar, Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Capital Asset’]. In the computation of Long Term Capital Gain, the appellant claimed Indexed Cost of Acquisition of INR.72,55.240/- by taking Fair Market Value of the Capital Asset as on 01/04/2081 at INR.6,71,160/- on the basis of valuation ... report obtained from a valuer. The Indexed Cost of Acquisition was computed by the Appellant as under: - FMV as on 01/04/1981 : INR.6,71,160/- - Cost Inflation Index for F.Y. 2015-16 : 1081 - Cost Inflation Index for F.V. 1981-02 : 100 - Indexed Cost of Acquisition : INR.72,55,240/- [INR.6

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Thane vs. Aarav Fragrances and Flavors Private Limited, Thane

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

ITA 546/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2016-17 Dy. Cit, Circle-1, Aarav Fragrances & Flavors Pvt. Room No. 22, B Wing, 6Th Floor, Ltd., Ashar I.T. Park, Road No. 16Z, Vs. Plot No. A-152/153 Wagle Industrial Wagle Indl. Estate, Area, Road No. 25, Midc, Thane-400604. Thane (W) – 400604. Pan No. Aagca 2145 K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Rajesh Athavale

Section 45Section 48

Aarav Suisse SA were sold by the assessee under buy back scheme. Accordingly, the assessee computed long term capital gain by deducting the indexed cost of acquisition of assessee, which wascomputed by applying cost inflation index. The same resulted in long term capital loss of Rs.22.93 crores. The AO took ... provisions of clause (ii) shall have effect as if for the words "cost of acquisition" and "cost of any improvement", the words "indexed cost of acquisition" and "indexed cost of any improvement" had respectively been substituted: [Provided also that nothing contained in the first and second provisos shall apply

Income Tax Officer Ward 20(2)(1) Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Jinendra Mahendrakumar Shah, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4523/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Jigar Mehta, DR

Section 115BSection 69

LTCG) of Rs. 57,352/- on sale of jewelry. The full value of consideration was at Rs. 65,13,421/- against which the indexed cost of acquisition was deducted to the tune of Rs. 25,77,940/- resulting in LTCG of Rs. 39,35,481/-. The assessee has claimed exemption ... material on record. During the year under consideration the assessee has sold jewelry for a consideration of Rs.65,13,421 and claimed the indexed cost of acquisition of Rs.25,77,940 as a deduction offering the difference as LTCG. For the purpose of cost of acquisition, the assessee obtained

DCIT 3(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Neville Tuli, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue Department stands dismissed

ITA 3203/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Porus Kaka, Ld. Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Preetam kumar Turerao, Ld. SR. AR

Section 24Section 250Section 55

borrowed funds and for claiming the long term capital gain on the same, has deducted the amount of Rs.9,90,67,611/- as indexed cost of acquisition and Rs.3,95,42,739/- as indexed cost of interest paid to bank (shown under “indexed cost of improvement”) and offered the amount

Indu Bala, Delhi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 60(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 3869/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Neeraj Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR

which was considered as sale consideration in the return of income filed and assessee claimed Rs.6,59,10,388 as indexed cost of acquisition as per details below :- Date Purchase Indexed factor Indexed cost amount ... providing for indexation. Since the right of the assessee became absolute on 15.03.2002 due to a government order passed on that date, the indexed cost of acquisition of the land is Rs.52,88,026/-.  The amount of Rs.1,17,32,000/- paid on 07.02.2013 is the cost of improvement

Satish Ramanbhai Patel, Vadodara vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1)(4), Vadodara

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

ITA 672/AHD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Nov 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Ms. Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sanket Bakshi, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Mamta Singh, Sr. D.R

Section 144Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 234ASection 234BSection 249(4)Section 250Section 271Section 48

learned AO erred in fact and in law in making an addition of Rs.1,00,00,000/-without allowing the benefit of indexed cost of acquisition as eligible u/s. 48 of the Act. 5. The learned AO erred in fact and in law in making an addition of the gross

Dy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 7 Pune, Pune vs. Kruti Lalitkumar Jain, Pune

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

ITA 1554/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 54F

purchased by the assessee on 26.11.2007 for Rs.6,21,90,000/- and after claiming cost of selling of Rs.4,57,000/- and indexed cost of acquisition of Rs.9,61,63,122/-, the assessee has shown long term capital loss of Rs.6,20,122/-. The Assessing Officer further noted that ... purchased by her on 26.11.2007 for Rs.6,21,90,000/-. We find that after claiming cost of selling of Rs.4,57,000/- and indexed cost of acquisition at Rs.9,61,63,122/-, the assessee declared long term capital loss of Rs.6,20,122/-. We find the Assessing Officer treated

Devanand Babasaheb Shirke, Nagpur vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward 4(4), Nagpur

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

ITA 357/NAG/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur18 Nov 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

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

Section 147Section 234A

unwarranted and excessive; 5. On the facts and circumstances the learned CIT(A) NFAC ought to have accepted sale consideration as well as indexed cost of acquisition and selling expenses, therefore addition confirmed at Rs. 40,47,000/- is unjustified, unwarranted and excessive; 6. On the facts and circumstances

Ashok Kumar Kolla, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-6(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 876/HYD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad14 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G. & आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.876/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15) Shri Ashok Kumar Kolla Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Hyderabad Income Tax, Circle 6(1) Pan:Afwpk8481L Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri A.V.Raghuram, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri K.N. Suresh Babu, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 07/11/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 14/11/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri A.V.Raghuram, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Shri K.N. Suresh Babu, DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

explain as to why Long-Term Capital Gain from sale of property cannot be recomputed on account of excess claim of deduction towards indexed cost of acquisition. The Assessing Officer noted that, although, the assessee has incurred expenditure of Rs.96,18,402/- towards cost of improvement of asset, but while ... bills & vouchers made 30% adhoc disallowances and re- Page 2 of 11 ITA No 876 of 2024 Ashok Kumar Kolla computed the indexed cost of acquisition. Therefore, it cannot be said that there is under assessment of capital gain on account of excess deduction allowed towards indexed cost of acquisition

Gangaram Vallabhji Soni, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir-5(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2877/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Nov 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Bharat KumarFor Respondent: Shri Bhangepatil Pushkaraj Ramesh, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 54Section 56(2)(x)

considered as the sale consideration received on giving of old flat. Against the same, the assessee is entitled to deduct the indexed cost of acquisition of old flat and the indexed cost of improvement, if any, incurred in respect of that flat in order to arrive at the Capital gain

Jagdish Choudhary, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle International Taxation 1(2)(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 1556/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Nov 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2019-20]

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(15)(b)Section 92C

flats sold but did not claim any indexation on this amount. On the sale of these flats, the assessee had claimed indexed cost of acquisition amounting to Rs.2,71,77,059/-, which the AO disallowed in the draft assessment order passed under Section 144C of the Act dated ... property. However, the assessee has clubbed such payments with the cost of acquisition and claimed indexation benefit on the entire amount as indexed cost of acquisition. Therefore, even if deduction of such expenses is allowed, indexation benefit can only be claimed from the year of payment and not from

Joseph Kiran Kumar Reddy Basani, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-5(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 694/HYD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. Hon’Ble & Shri K. Narasimha Chary Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2015-16 Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Joseph Kiran Kumar Reddy Income Tax, Basani, Circle 5(1), C/O. Pary & Co., Chartered Hyderabad. Accountants, No.6, 2Nd Floor, 8-2-703/Vj/6, Vijay Villa, Road No.12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad – 500034, Telangana. Pan : Agcpb8082B. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Vamsi Krishna Reddy, C.A. Revenue By: Shri Karthik Manickam, Sr.Ar. Date Of Hearing: 29.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.10.2024

For Appellant: Shri Vamsi Krishna Reddy, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Karthik Manickam, Sr.AR

Section 54Section 54FSection 54F(1)Section 54F(3)

total consideration of Rs.76,32,000/- and computed long term capital gain after deducting indexed cost of acquisition of Rs. 2,90,010/- and claimed exemption under Section 54 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for Rs. 76,83,990/- for purchase of another residential house property

Surender Pal, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Civic Centre

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1351/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar Usa.Yr. : 2014-15 Surender Pal Vs. Income Tax Officer, (Through Legal Heir Of Assessee) Ward 69(2), 3/326, Upper Ground Floor, Room No. 205, D-Block, Nirankari Colony, Civic Centre, Delhi – 110 009 New Delhi – 110 002 (Pan: Ahupp1615Q) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Lakshay Bhudiraja, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Shashi Kajle, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 45Section 54Section 69A

requirements of section 54. The AO determined the Net Capital Gain as under:- Total Sales Consideration Rs.3,10,00,000 Less: i. Indexed Cost of acquisition computed by Rs. 58,28,830 assessee ii.Cost of house purchased on 04.07.2014 Rs. 56,20,250 Rs. 1,14,49,080 Net Capital

The ACIT, Circle-1, Bhavnagar vs. Shri Vallabhbhai Dhanjibhai Patel, Bhavnagar

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

ITA 7/AHD/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: The Tribunal On

Section 143(3)Section 2(14)Section 45Section 50C

Rs.7,06,00,000/-, AO has computed income from Long Term Capital gain after considering such amount as sale value and allowing indexed cost of acquisition at Rs.6,37,326/-. The AO has made addition of Long Term Capital Gain of Rs.6,99,62,674/-. On perusal of purchase deed

Beaver Estates Private Limited, Kochi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Range 1, Kochi

ITA 896/COCH/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Oct 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singhgood Homes Pvt. Ltd. Acit, Corporate Range-1 3Rd Floor, Puthuran Plaza C.R. Building, Is Press Road Mg Road, Kpcc Junction Vs. Kochi 682018 Ernakulam 682011 [Pan: Aabcg0444L] (Appellant) (Respondent) Beaver Estates Pvt. Ltd Acit, Corporate Range-1 Asian School Of Architecture C.R. Building, Is Press Road & Design Innovation Kochi 682018 Vs. Silversand Island, Vytila Road Ernakulam 682019 [Pan: Aadcb0193M] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Smt. V. Swarnalatha, Sr. D.R

Section 250

proceedings as well as Appellate proceedings. The learned CIT(A) as well as the learned AO should have allowed the deduction of the indexed cost of acquisition and development of the property amounting to Rs: 1,14,34,222 and determined the loss under the head income from Capital gains

Good Homes Private Limited, Kochi vs. Asst Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), Kochi

ITA 893/COCH/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Oct 2024AY 2009-10

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Smt. V. Swarnalatha, Sr. D.R

Section 250

Lalita Trehan, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle Int. Tax 3(1)(1), New Delhi

ITA 3352/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Oct 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2021-22]

Section 143(3)Section 50CSection 54E

Montessori Public School) on the above land was done before 2001 and further construction was completed in F.Y. 2003-04. The assessee claimed indexed cost of acquisition amounting to Rs.16,37,12,395/- on the land measuring 7502 sq. ft.. Further, the assessee claimed the following:- i. Indexed cost

M/S. Maha Gujarat Silk Selection, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-5(2)(5), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 50/AHD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.50/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S.Maha Gujarat Silk Section The Ito बनाम/ 402, Akshat Apartment Ward-5(2)(5) V/S. Opp. Suvidha Shopping Centre Ahmedabad Paldi Ahmedabad – 380 007 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aagfm 5457 M अपीलाथ%/ (Appellant) &' यथ%/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ritesh Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri V.K. Mangla, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 15/10/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22/10/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Ritesh Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri V.K. Mangla, Sr.DR

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

wherein it was contended that the AO had erred in treating the entire sale consideration as income without considering the indexed cost of acquisition. The assessee claimed a capital loss on the sale of the immovable property and provided the computation of income along with the property purchase and sale ... computation of income showing the capital loss and sale and purchase agreements related to the immovable property for the purpose of computing the indexed cost of acquisition. The assessee also argued that the email notices were sent to the previous tax consultant’s email-id, who failed to inform them

Dharambir, Gurgaon vs. Pr, CIT, Faridabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 787/DEL/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar Usdharambir Vs. Pr. Cit Village-Nakhrola, Naharpur, C.R. Building, Faridabad, Gurgaon, Haryana. Haryana. Pan No.Aumpd4924E (Appellant) (Respondent)

year under consideration. He will examine the cost of acquisition and determination of capital gains. He is directed to examine the eligibility of indexed cost of acquisition, amount of capital gains, fulfillment of various conditions of clause (ii) & (iii) and applicability of provisions of section

Anjali Sudhir Moghe, Pune vs. ITO, Ward 7(3), Pune

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

ITA 1808/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1808/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Shri B.S.Rajpurohit

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 54

Rs.85,00,000/-. The assessee’s share was stated to be 33% out of such sale consideration. The assessee after reducing 1/3rd indexed cost of acquisition from her father, capital gain was claimed at Rs.27,88,084/-. On the basis of information provided by the assessee, the Assessing Officer noticed