“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

Late Sharad Shankar Kale, Nagpur vs. ITO Ward 5(1), Nagpur

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed as per the terms indicated above

ITA 511/NAG/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur10 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad

For Appellant: Mrs. Anchal Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 250

been granted by the Ld.CIT(A) and, secondly on merits that Ld. Assessing Officer (AO) erred in not allowing the deduction for indexed cost of acquisition and improvement of the property sold by the assessee during the year. 4. At the outset, learned counsel for the assessee submitted that Late

Repro India Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7605/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Feb 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarrepro India Limited Acit Circle 11Th Floor, B Wing, Sun 8(1)(1), Paradise Business Plaza, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Senapati Bapat Marg, Mumbai-400 020 Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400 013 Pan/Gir No. Aaacr0379J (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Vijay Mehta, Ld. Ar Revenue By Shri Umashankar Prasad, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 04.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 09.02.2026

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250

Gain on sale of land or building” and declared aggregate 3 Repro India Limited sale consideration of Rs. 27,77,52,161/-, against indexed cost of acquisition of Rs. 46,66,14,214/-, resulting in a long-term capital loss of Rs. 18,88,62,053/-. 5. In the revised ... assessee reclassified the transaction under “Capital Gain on assets not covered under clauses B1 to B8 of Schedule CG” and declared indexed cost of acquisition at Rs. 49,73,72,283/-, sale consideration at Rs. 27,77,52,161/-, and long-term capital loss

Kishore Anand Shetty, Goregaon East Mumbai vs. Circle 32(2), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed in terms indicated above

ITA 4975/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 50CSection 54F

registered sale agreement dt. 02.09.2013 Rs. 6,70,23,000/-. Share of the appellant 32%. Rs. 2,14,47,360/- (ii) Less: Indexed Cost of acquisition Share of the appellant Rs. 74,29,043/- (ii) Long Term Capital Gain (undisputed

Kishore Anand Shetty, Mumbai vs. Circle-32(2), Mumbai

ITA 4974/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 50CSection 54F

Income Tax Officer, Ward-30(5), Delhi vs. Sanjeev Aggarwal, Delhi

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5555/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandraincome Tax Officer, Vs. Sanjeev Aggarwal, Ward-30(5), E2-1410, Civic Center, Delhi New Delhi (Assessee) (Respondent) Pan: Aaepa2964M Assessee By : None Revenue By: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 05/02/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 05/02/2026

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148

line with business requirements. These amounts, after applying the appropriate Sanjeev Aggarwal indexation benefits, were calculated to aggregate 4,92,39,190/-. The indexed cost of acquisition of the land, amounting to 7,46,578/-, was also duly computed and considered. Based on these computations, the assessee declared longterm capital ... claim for cost of improvements is reasonable and supported by sufficient material. The calculation provided by the assessee, which includes both the indexed cost of acquisition and indexed cost of improvements, results in a more accurate determination of the taxable capital gains. By ignoring these legitimate costs

Madhukar Ganpat Dhakwal, Mangaon vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 5, New Panvel

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2434/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rama Kant Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं / Ita No.2434 & 2418/Pun/2025 धििाारण वषा /Assessment Year: 2018-19 Madhukar Ganpat Ito, Ward 8(5), Dhakwal, Raigad 1/B At Tilore Post Vs. Vighawali Tal Mangaon, Wighawali B.O Tilore, Raigarh Maharashtra Pan-Bfopd7627G अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent Assessee By: Ca Hiral D. Sejpal & Ankita P. Gorde Department By: Smt. Sonal L Sonkavde, Addl-Cit Date Of Hearing: 03-02-2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 16-03-2026 आदेश/Order Per Shri Vinay Bhamore: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Same Order Dated 25.08.2025 Passed By Ld. [Cit(A)] Nfac, Delhi For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

For Respondent: Smt. Sonal L Sonkavde

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 250Section 50C

value of consideration of the land is Rs. 20,00,000/- 6.1.3. The land is held for more than 24 months 6.1.4. The Indexed cost of acquisition of the land 6.2. Therefore, the Appellant prays that the addition amounting to Rs. 53,65,000/- is bad in law. 7. Ground

Madhukar Ganpat Dhakwal, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 8(5), Raigad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2418/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

For Respondent: Smt. Sonal L Sonkavde

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 250Section 50C

Income Tax Officer, Cumballa Hill vs. Seth Damji Laxmichand Jain Dharma Sthanak, Chinchpokali

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 4824/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Jagadishincome Tax Officer Seth Damji Laxmichand Jain Room No. 617, 6Th Floor, Dharma Sthanak Mtnl Building, Peddar Road, Vs. 64 Dr. Ambedkar Road, Cumballa Hill, Mumbai-400 026 Opp. Kalchowki, Post Office, Chichpokali, Mumbai-400 012 Pan/Gir No. Aacts 2218 L (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Hemant Jawahar Lal & Shri Ravi Ganatra Respondent By : Shri Arun Kanti Datta – Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.02.2026 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey: The Present Appeal By The Department Arises Out Of Order Dated 26.05.2025, Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Nfac’ For Short), Delhi Pertaining To The Assessment Year (A.Y. For Short) 2012-13. 2. The Effective Grounds Raised By The Department Are As Under: 1. "On The Facts & Circumstances In Allowing Of The Case & In Law, The Ld Cit(A) Erred The Benefit Of Indexed Cost Of Acquisition Trust Registered U/S. 48 Of The Act To A U/S. 12A, Disregarding Dated 19.06.1968. The Cbdt Circular No 5-P(Lxx- 2. "On The Facts & Circumstances Allowing Accumulation Of The Case & In Law, The Cit(A) Erred In Same Being Under Section 11(1)(A) On Capital Gains, Despite The Resulting In Already Deemed As Applied Under Section 11(1A), Thereby Double Deduction". 3. "On The Facts & Circumstances To Appreciate Of The Case & In Law, He Ld. Cit(A) Failed J.K. Synthetics The Ratio Of Decision Of Hon'Ble Supreme Court In The Case Of Apex Court Ltd. V. Union Of India (199 Itr 43) (Sc) Wherein The Hon'Ble Has Categorically Held That No Legislation Permit Double Can Be Construed To Specifically Deduction In Respect Of The Same Expenditure Unless Provided.

For Appellant: Shri Hemant Jawahar Lal &For Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta – CIT DR

Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(2)Section 11ASection 12ASection 48

under: 1. "On the facts and circumstances in allowing of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) erred the benefit of indexed cost of acquisition trust registered u/s. 48 of the Act to a u/s. 12A, disregarding dated 19.06.1968. the CBDT Circular ... total consideration of Rs.50 crores. While computing capital gain, the assessee had claimed deduction on account of property tax of Rs.25,415/- and indexed cost of acquisition of Rs.5,03,17,362/- and offered net long term capital gain of Rs.44,96,57,223/-. With reference to the claim

Azizul Ghani, New Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer - ITO Ward 63(3) New Delhi, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2962/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarazizul Ghani Vs. Ito, Ward 63(3) 1407 Pan Mandi E-2, Block, Civic Centre, Sadar Bazar, New Delhi – 110002 Delhi – 110006 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aajpg7737K Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Rano Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 54

corrected computation of capital gains submitted during the appellate proceedings, wherein the assessee had provided a detailed and substantiated working of the indexed cost of acquisition, including: • Indexed cost of 32.5% share of original purchase price of Property No. B-480, New Friends Colony, New Delhi (purchased ... 1024/389 - 1,14,252 • Proportionate indexed cost of construction during FY 2008-2010 77,50,652 × (374.86/940.61) × 1024/711 = 44,48,649 Total Indexed Cost of Acquisition = 69,43,452 Resulting Correct Long-Term Capital Gain = 6,47,06,548 (against the assessed figure

Xl Colour Coating, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-15(1), Chennai

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

ITA 3505/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3505/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 Xl Colour Coating, Vs. The Income Tax Officer , Plot No. 76, Industrial Developed Plots, Non Corporate Ward 15(1), Perungudi, Chennai 600 096. Chennai. [Pan:Aaafx0897J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Y. Sridhar, Fca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Sbr Kumar Laghimsetti, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 21.01.2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 02.02.2026 : आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Y. Sridhar, FCAFor Respondent: Shri SBR Kumar Laghimsetti, Addl. CIT

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 50C

short] is applicable to the assessee. The Assessing Officer calculated income from capital gain at ₹.3,56,04,777/- after deducting the indexed cost of acquisition amounting to ₹.4,33,31,223/- from the market value of ₹.7,89,36,000/-. 3 I.T.A. No.3505/Chny/25 The Assessing Officer also noted that

S Rajasekaran, Chennai vs. DCIT, Ncc-7(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes, in the manner indicated above

ITA 2821/CHNY/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Feb 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. M. Karunakaran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Kumar Chandan, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 37Section 40

sold immovable property of Rs.32,75,00,000/- and declared long term capital gain of Rs.7,19,97,100/- after deducting the index cost of acquisition of Rs.25,55,02,900/-. Further, the AO observed that the assessee has deducted indexed cost of acquisition of Rs.1

Vijaymala Vilas Kalokhe, Pune vs. ITO Ward-10(1), Pune

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

ITA 1666/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1666/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Vijaymala Vilas Kalokhe, Ito, Ward-10(1), Pune Aditya Row House, Lane No. 2, Opp. Patel Garden, Sr. No. 8/2A, Vs. Juni Sangavi, Maharashtra-411027 Pan : Asepk8161G अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Kishor B Phadke Department By : Shri Amit Bobde Date Of Hearing : 28-01-2026 Date Of 30-01-2026 Pronouncement : आदेश / Order Per Astha Chandra, Jm : The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 17.06.2025 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi [“Cit(A)/Nfac”] Pertaining To Assessment Year (“Ay”) 2013-14. 2. Briefly Stated The Facts Are That The Assessee Is An Individual. He Filed His Return Of Income For Ay 2013-14 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.2,21,050/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened U/S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The “Act”) After Following The Mandate Procedure As Laid Down Under The Relevant Provisions Of The Act. Accordingly, Statutory Notice U/S 142(1) Of The Act & Show Cause Letter(S) Were Issued To The Assessee From Time To Time. However, The Assessee Failed To File Any Response To The Said Notice(S) Which Constrained The Ld. Assessing Officer (“Ao”) To Pass An Ex-Parte Order U/S 144 Of The Act Based On The Material Available On Record. The Ld. Ao Proceeded To Complete The Assessment On Total Income Of Rs.2,66,70,989/-U/S 147 R.W.S. 144 Of The Act Thereby Making An Addition Of Rs.2,63,83,209/- On Account Of Undisclosed Long Term Capital Gain (Ltcg) By Observing As Under : “5.1. On-Going Through The Information Available On Record & In View Of The Order Passed U/S 148A(D) Of The Act Dated 21.07.2022, It Is Noticed That 2

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)(b)Section 2(14)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 50C

explanation, the entire amount of Rs. 2,63,83,209/- is brought to tax under the head LTCG without providing the benefit of indexed cost of acquisition due to non- compliance on the part of the assessee.” 3. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter before the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC

Mahesh Kumar Bhati, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward 7(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1860/HYD/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Jan 2026AY 2020-2021

Bench: transfer making it a long term capital asset whereas the A.O. has treated the same as short term capital asset. 4. The assessment made by learned A.O. and upheld by the CIT(A) is incorrect as while computing capital gains indexed cost of acquisition has not been considered leading to excess assessment. 7. For these and other ground which may be raised during OR before the

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250

term capital asset. 4. The assessment made by learned A.O. and upheld by the CIT(A) is incorrect as while computing capital gains indexed cost of acquisition has not been considered leading to excess assessment. 7. For these and other ground which may be raised during OR before the appeal

Crystal Ice and Cold Stor Age, Mangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Mangaluru

In the result, Appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2309/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice –Assessment Year :2016-17 M/S. Crystal Ice & Cold Storage, Plot No. 395-A1 Industrial Area, The Income Tax Officer, Baikampady New, Mangalore, Ward-1(1), Vs. Mangaluru, Karnataka – 575011. Mangaluru. Pan: Aaefc9692E Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, Advocate

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 194I

cost of Rs. 13,52,600/- and further improvement cost was incurred in 2008-09 amounting to Rs. 4,72,698/-. The indexed cost of acquisition and improvement was computed at Rs. 58,87,104/- and resultant capital gain was worked Page

Gyasuddin Mohammad Ansari, Purnia vs. ITO, Ward- 3 (3), Purnea

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 311/PAT/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Patna29 Jan 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 250Section 80Section 80E

area in which the Property transferred was situated. 2. For that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in estimating the Indexed Cost of acquisition at Rs.20.00 lakhs without stating the basis for the same and ITA No.: 311/PAT/2025 Assessment Year: 2023-24 Gyasuddin Mohammad Ansari. which is in sharp contrast ... under a wrong head. The appellant has submitted the working of capital loss as given below Sale consideration - Rs 48,68,000/ Less: Indexed cost of acquisition - Rs 50,85,363/ Long Term Capital Loss - Rs (-)2,17.363/ 5.2.2 However, the problem with the above claim is that appellant

Ravindrabhai Shankarbhai Patel, Vadodara vs. The ITO, Ward-1(2)(5) Now ITO, Ward-1(2)(2), Vadodara

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

ITA 1061/AHD/2025[2015-16]Status: PendingITAT Ahmedabad29 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalthe Ito Ravindrabhai Shankarbhai Vs. Ward-1(2)(5). Patel Now Ito, Ward-1(2)(2) 86,Kanha Residency Vadodara – 390 007 Kalali Road, Kalali Ahmedabad – 390 012 [Pan : Aigpp 8415 M] (Appellant) (Respondent) .. Assessee Represented By : Ms. Urvashi Shodhan, Ar Revenue Represented By : Shri Abhijit, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 27/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29/01/2026

Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 144ASection 54BSection 54F

residential house. The assessee also claimed that part of the capital gains was deposited in the Capital Gain Account Scheme. After claiming indexed cost of acquisition, brokerage and other expenses, and deductions under sections 54B and 54F, the assessee returned the taxable long-term capital gain at Nil. 4. During

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-25(1), New Delhi, Delhi vs. Techno Trexim India Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 582/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar Uss.

For Appellant: Shri I.P. Bansal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Abhijeet Kumar, Sr.DR

Section 37

claimed sale consideration receipt during the relevant F.Y. of Rs. 2,49,46,128/- and Rs. 2,33,59,728/- and after claiming indexed cost of acquisition, the assessee has claimed to have incurred a long-term capital loss of Rs. 2,92,89,516/- which has been claimed ... Unit no 47 in Piyush Global — 1 Faridabad to Mr Sishant Chabra and Mrs Bala Chabra on the basis of indexed cost of acquisition and also claimed the same as carry forward loss, which was denied by the AO. We observed from the record that the assessee had executed

Techno Trexim (India) Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 25(1), Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 468/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar Uss.

For Appellant: Shri I.P. Bansal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Abhijeet Kumar, Sr.DR

Section 37

Rajasekhar Naidu Galla, Tirupati vs. DCIT., Circle-1(1), Tirupathi

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

ITA 917/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

order erroneous insofar as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The learned PCIT further observed that, the assessee has claimed indexed cost of acquisition of Rs. 4,33,50,000/- against the sale consideration of Rs. 4,30,00,000/- and declared a long-term capital loss ... assessee was long-term capital asset or not. Since the assessee has failed to furnish documentary evidence in support of his claim of indexed cost of acquisition, the A.O. ought to have disallowed the cost of acquisition for Rs. 4,33,50,000/- and 6 Rajasekhar Naidu Galla treated

A.C..I.T. Circle-41(4)(1), Mumbai vs. Shri Awadhnarayan Laxminarayan Singh, Mumbai

ITA 6227/MUM/2025[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jan 2026AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya, ARFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Mohan,(Sr. DR)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 149Section 150(1)

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