“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

Yalavarthy Padma Priya, Vijayawada vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3), Vijayawada

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

ITA 350/VIZ/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam15 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 350/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2018-19) Yellavarthy Padma Priya V. Income Tax Officer – Ward – 2(3) Income Tax Office D.No. 48-6-6/5, Flat No. 401 C.R. Building, M.G. Road Sri Sai Plaza, Basavapunnaiah Street Vijayawada Gunadala Vijayawada – 520005 Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Adapy6673L] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 148A

misreported as Rs.2,84,88,.000/- in the notice. Assessee has offered long term capital gain of Rs. 1,34,637/- after claiming indexed cost of acquisition of Rs.2,17,471/- and indexed cost of improvement for Rs.1,36,91,892/- and assessee also accounted for the expenditure incurred ... improvement and transfer expenditure as claimed in the return of income. The Assessing Officer considering the reply of the assessee, accepted the indexed cost of acquisition of land of Rs.2,17,471/-. Further, since no evidences was provided by the assessee with respect to indexed cost of improvement

Varun Manjunatha, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3)(3), Bangalore

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

ITA 1278/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Joseph Varghese, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian .S, JCIT (DR)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 234ASection 250

justified in law in upholding and confirming the additions made by the Ld. AO in the assessment order without taking into consideration the indexed cost of acquisition, cost of improvement, expenses on transfer of the property on the facts and circumstances of the case. 7. The findings

Ramesh Reddy Gongalla, United States vs. ADIT(Int Taxn)-1, Hyderabad

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

ITA 113/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad14 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri S.Rama Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri B.Bala Krishna, CIT, DR

Section 133(6)Section 147Section 45Section 54Section 54F

retains only 47.25% and in lieu of the transferred land agreed to receive the constructed area. Learned Assessing Officer should have allowed indexed cost of acquisition and referred the matter to the DVO for determination of the full value of consideration in respect of the transferred land. The next argument ... land in question to the DVO and called for the documents under which the assessee acquired the property for computing the indexed cost of acquisition and determination of fair capital gains. We, therefore, allow this plea of the assessee and direct the learned Assessing Officer to refer the determination

Asst CIT 9(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Bhaskar Gopichand Gupta, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 4733/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Oct 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm & Shri Renu Jauhri, Am

For Appellant: Shri Bhadresh Doshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Paresh Deshpande

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 54ESection 80CSection 80D

claimed brokerage paid of ₹8,21,000/-. The assessee disclosed long-term capital gain of Rs.3,77,12,333/- after reducing the index cost of acquisition at ₹3,35,66,667/-. 2.3. The Ld.AO noted that, the assessee did not declare net LTCG of ₹3,27,12,333/- after claiming ... case of CIT vs. Tata Services Ltd. (1980) 122 ITR 594. Further the appellant is entitled to get reduction of brokerage and indexed cost of acquisition of the asset. Hence the grounds of appeal no. 3 to 9 are treated as allowed. 2.3.12 Vide grounds of appeal

Narendra Shankar Gavand, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward 3(1), Thane

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1057/MUM/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Oct 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm A.Y.2010-11 Narendra Shankar Gavand, Ito, A-303, Pushp Parag, Chs Ward 3(1), Pokharan Road No.1, Thane Vs. Samta Nagar, Thane (West) (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan Aehpg 2061E Assessee By Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi Revenue By Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha, Sr. (Dr)

Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 50CSection 55(2)(b)

plot of land at Bhandup (W), Mumbai, to be income of the appellant liable for tax, without granting appropriate deduction for indexed cost of acquisition of such rights, as per provisions of section 55(2)(b)(ii) of the I.T. Act, 1961 and incorrectly dismissing the specific ground of appeal

Income Tax Officer, Indore vs. Rajendra Singh Yadav, Indore

Appeal is dismissed being devoid of merit

ITA 152/IND/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore07 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year : 2015-16 Ito-1(2), Rajendra Singh Yadav, Indore 112/12, Nanda Nagar, बनाम/ Opp. Anoop Talkies, Vs. Indore (Revenue / Appellant) (Assessee / Respondent) Pan: Amkpy2261P Assessee By Shri Venus Rawka, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 07.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 07.10.2024

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 54BSection 54F

consideration of Rs. 9,31,38,041/-. The assessee declared 1/3rd share in land at Rs. 3,10,46,013/- against which claimed indexed cost of acquisition of Rs. 81,538/-, leaving net capital gain of Rs. 3,09,64,475/-. From such capital gain, the assessee claimed exemption

Vivek Gangadhar Mehendale, Santacruz, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 22(3)(1), Piramal Chambers, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 2644/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Miss Padmavathy S.

For Appellant: ShriAnil SatheFor Respondent: Ms. Rajeshwari Menon, SRDR

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 54Section 54FSection 64(1)

wife and entire amount was invested by the assessee himself. The sale value was Rs.1,30,00,000/- and after deduction of the indexed cost of acquisition Rs.21,54,858/-, the assessee calculated long term capital gain U/s 54 of the Act read with section

Kumar Madhavanpillai.S, Thiruvananthapuram vs. ITO, Ward-1(4), Trivandrum

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

ITA 461/COCH/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Oct 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Kumar Madhavanpillai S. Income Tax Officer -1(4) Chandra Press & Book Depot Aayakar Bhavan, Kowdiar P.O. Manjalikulam Road Thiruvananthapuram 695003 Vs. Thampanoor Thiruvananthapuram 695001 [Pan: Ajxps9299P] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Anil Krishnan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Girly Albert, Sr. D.R

Section 50Section 54

lakh on the construction of shop etc. which was claimed as the cost of improvement. Thus, the assessee after claiming indexed cost of acquisition and indexed cost of improvement and deduction u/s 54/54F of the Act on account of purchase of new property declared long term capital gain ... value of one of property as long term capital assets and accordingly long-term capital gain was computed on the same after index cost of acquisition and further provided exemption under section 54 of the Act on account of investment in residential property i.e. only for TC No. 25/1729. Thus

Rajani Prakash Kashid, Kolhapur vs. ITO, Ward 1(4), Kolhapur

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 608/PUN/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Oct 2024AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri A.D. Kulkarni

Section 142(1)Section 148Section 2

acquisition incurred in obtaining land in Inam. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the indexed cost of acquisition be allowed while calculating long term capital gain. 3. The appellant craves, to consider each of the above grounds of appeal without prejudice

Sundaramurthy Sathyakumar, Chennai vs. ITO Corp Ward 6(3), Chennai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1011/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 1011/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Sundaramurthy Sathyakumar, Income Tax Officer, V-31, 13Th Street, Anna Nagar, V. Corporate Ward -6(3), Chennai - 600 040. Chennai. [Pan: Aasps-1930-K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri. K. Meenakshi Sundaram, Itp अपीलाथ" क" ओरसे/Appellant By ""यथ" क" ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. Aroon Prasad, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.07.2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 01.10.2024

For Respondent: Shri. Aroon Prasad, Addl. CIT

Section 68

assessee sold the building during the AY 2016-17 and earned Long term Capital gains of Rs.53,32,205/-, after deducting indexed cost of acquisition and indexed cost of improvement. :-5-: ITA. No: 1011/Chny/2024 4. During the course of the scrutiny assessment, the assessee furnished evidence consisting of vouchers

Rajen Rajmalbhai Mehta, Surat vs. ACIT, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1760/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2011-12 Rajen Rajmalbhai Mehta, Assistant Commissioner Of 501, Swagat Complex, Income Tax, Vs. Near Mehta Park, Nanpura, Mumbai Surat, Gujarat – 395001 (Pan : Aabpm4155D) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : None Revenue : Smt. Mahita Nair, Sr. Dr

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)

through inheritance and accordingly cost inflation index from the date the previous owner held the said property would be applicable in determining the indexed cost of acquisition and indexed cost of improvement." 8. However, ld. Assessing Officer did not entertain the claim of the assessee for the following three reasons

Rajesh Birthare, Indore vs. ITO 3(2), Indore

Appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 112/IND/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore26 Sept 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Raoand**

Section 144

# **आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, इंदौर Ɋायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE** # **BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO

Rajesh Birthare, Indore vs. Income Tax Officer 3(4), Indore

Appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 111/IND/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Indore26 Sept 2024AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

Section 144Section 147Section 148

assessment proceedings. The Learned AO, without giving any opportunity to | Appellant, added full amount of sale consideration without allowing deduction towards indexed cost of acquisition and other deductions to the total Income of Appellant. Without giving any opportunity and serving the show-cause notice order passed under | section ... assessment proceedings. The Learned AO, without giving any opportunity to Appellant, added full amount of sale consideration without allowing deduction towards indexed cost of acquisition and other deductions to the total Income of Appellant. Without giving any opportunity and serving the show-cause notice order passed under section

Shri Kirankumar Rasiklal Sanghvi, Deesa vs. The Pr.CIT-4, Ahmedabad

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 179/AHD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarिनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 Shri Kirankumar Rasiklal Sanghvi, The Principal Commissioner Of 1, Paras Society, Neminathnagar Income-Tax-4, Vs. Road, Deesa, Gujarat-385535 Ahmedabad Pan : Afops 0131 D अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" "" "" यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" Assessee By : Shri Manish J. Shah & Shri Rushin Patel, Ars Revenue By : Shri Durga Dutt, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12.09.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 24.09.2024 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Annapurna Gupta: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax-4, Ahmedabad [Herein- After Referred To As “Pcit”] Dated 03.03.2020, In Exercise Of His Revisionary Powers Under Section 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”], For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16. 2. The Registry Has Noted The Present Appeal To Be Barred By Limitation By 1355 Days. The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Explained That There Was, In Fact, No Delay In Filing The Appeal Before The Tribunal For The Reason That The Assessee Had Inadvertently Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Ld. Pcit Before The Surat Bench Of The Itat Which, When The Appeal Came Up For Hearing Before It, Passed A Judicial Order Dated 21.11.2023 Dismissing The Appeal As Withdrawn, Noting The Fact That The Correct Jurisdiction Lay With The 2 Shri Kirankumar Rasiklal Sanghvi Vs. Pcit Ay : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Manish J. Shah &For Respondent: Shri Durga Dutt, CIT-DR

Section 14Section 143(3)Section 23Section 263Section 54F

same is reproduced at para 4(f) of the order as under:- Sale consideration received as per sale Rs.6,71,05,250/- deed Indexed cost of acquisition Rs.55,815/- Indexed cost of improvement Rs.91,79,037/- Total Rs.97,35,852 Rs.97,35,852/- Long term capital gain before deductions claimed ... corrected while working out the taxable long term capital gain as under:- Sale consideration received as per sale Rs.6,71,05,250/- deed Indexed cost of acquisition in respect of 80% share held by the assessee in Rs.5,53,180/- A.Y 2006-07 Indexed cost of acquisition in respect Rs.90

Polly Saha, Kolkata vs. ITO Ward 45(3), Kolkata

ITA 1097/KOL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Sept 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Taraknath Jaiswal, AdvFor Respondent: Madhumita Das, Addl. CIT

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 50C

property sold was Rs. 9,14,375/-, and not Rs. 25,92,567/- as considered by the Ld. AO. Considering the indexed cost of acquisition and cost of improvement, it would have still resulted in a long-term capital loss. Thus, no income had escaped assessment in this case

Rajkumar Kalwani, Jodhpur vs. DCIT, Circle (Int Tax), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the appellant is dismissed with no orders as to cost

ITA 878/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: This Mail Another Intimation Regarding Communicating Of Defects In The Present Appeal Was Also Sent On 25.06.2024 On The Same Mail Provided To The Registry Of Itat. However, Still The Assessee Or His Representative Didn'T Appear When The Case Was Called Out For Hearing. Therefore In The Absence Of Assessee Or His Representative & In The Absence Of Any Adjournment Application, It Is Presumed That The Assessee Is Not Interested In Pursuing The Present Appeal. Therefore We Have Decided To Proceed With The Hearing Of The Appeal.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Nagar, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 144CSection 270ASection 270A(1)

submitted the copy of sale deed and purchase deed only No explanation was provided on the issue of excess deduction claimed while calculating indexed cost of acquisition of Rs. 15,97,874/-. On perusal of the purchase deed it was noticed by the AO that the alleged property was purchased ... assessment proceedings with respect to LTCL nor he has objected with respect to the show cause notice that as to why the indexed cost of acquisition of the property should not be restricted to Rs. 4,56,01,500/- in place of Rs. 4,71,99,374/- Moreover, appellant

Pravin Gambhirchand Shah (HUF), Mumbai vs. Asst Commissioner of Income Tax - 26(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 1668/MUM/2024[AY 2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Sept 2024

Bench: SHRI BR BASKARAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 45Section 54ESection 54FSection 54F(1)Section 54F(2)

Neutral Glass and allied industries private Ltd. for an amount of Rs. 3,27,60,000/- on 18.04.2012 and after adjusting the indexed cost of acquisition at Rs. 9,73,918/-, income from long-term capital gains was shown as Rs. 3,17,86,082/- and after deducting exemption

Arun Namdeo Keni, Panvel vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-5, Panvel

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

ITA 813/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Dr. P DanielFor Respondent: Shri Keyur Patel, CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 54

crore. The Assessing Officer noted that the assessee has taken sale consideration at Rs.5,18,85,959/- instead of Rs.6 crore by claiming indexed cost of acquisition at Rs.2,57,94,502/- and deduction of Rs.2,60,91,457/- u/s 54 of the Act. Since the assessee did not furnish

Sri Nirmalendu Nag, Purba Midnapore vs. ITO WD. 27(2), Haldia

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 115/KOL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: the Ld Valuation Officer U/S 50C(2) of the IT Act, 961. 4 For that the Ld. CIT(A)NFAC failed to consider the order of Ld, CIT(A)NFAC in the matter of appellant's wife, Smt. Purnima Nag, who was the joint owner (50% share) of the said immoveable property sold to same purchaser jointly at a sale consideration of Rs.14,90,000/-

Section 144Section 147Section 250Section 50C(2)

grossly erred in law in confirming the order of Ld AO 2 For that the Ld CIT(A) NFAC failed consider and deduct Index Cost of Acquisition and Index Cost of Improvement from the value of the sale consideration(50%) of immoveable property(Land & Building) 3. For that ... case Ld. CIT(A) NFAC directed the A O to recompute the taxable long term capital gain after allowing deduction on account of Index cost of acquisition and Index Cost of Improvement from 50% of full value of consideration as determined by the Stamp valuation authority

Somasundaram Vijaya Kumar, Secunderabad vs. ITO., Ward-4(1), Hyderabad

ITA 744/HYD/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad02 Sept 2024AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No. 744/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Shri Somasundaram Vijay Vs. Income Tax Officer Kumar Ward 4)1) Secunderabad Hyderabad Pan:Bympk9364A (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Vishnu Teja L, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri K.N. Suresh Babu, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 29/08/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 02/09/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri Vishnu Teja L, CAFor Respondent: : Shri K.N. Suresh Babu, DR

Section 139Section 141Section 143(3)Section 147

determined the total income at Rs.34,19,920/- by making addition of Rs.32,95,934/- towards disallowance of indexed cost of acquisition claimed by the assessee and expenses of transfer. 3. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the learned CIT (A) but could not succeed. The learned ... support of deduction towards the cost of acquisition and expenses of transfer, the Assessing Officer taking note of relevant facts has allowed indexed cost of acquisition towards construction of building in the year 1999- Page 2 of 8 ITA No 744 of 2024 Somasundaram Vijay Kumar 2000 by taking Rs.250/per