← 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

Shri Ashokji Chanduji Thakor, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-3(3)(1), Ahmedabad

ITA 216/AHD/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Assessing Officer took a view that sale consideration of such land was Rs. 1,48,00,000/-. After giving the benefit of indexed cost of acquisition of Rs. 8,71,697/-, “Long Term Capital Gain” (“LTCG” for short) in the hands of the assessee worked

Shri Ashokji Chanduji Thakor, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-3(3)(1), Ahmedabad

ITA 215/AHD/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Jul 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Assessing Officer took a view that sale consideration of such land was Rs. 1,48,00,000/-. After giving the benefit of indexed cost of acquisition of Rs. 8,71,697/-, “Long Term Capital Gain” (“LTCG” for short) in the hands of the assessee worked

Shri Ashokji Chanduji Thakor, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-3(3)(1), Ahmedabad

ITA 214/AHD/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Jul 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Assessing Officer took a view that sale consideration of such land was Rs. 1,48,00,000/-. After giving the benefit of indexed cost of acquisition of Rs. 8,71,697/-, “Long Term Capital Gain” (“LTCG” for short) in the hands of the assessee worked

Shri Ashokji Chanduji Thakor, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-3(3)(1), Ahmedabad

ITA 213/AHD/2020[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Jul 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Assessing Officer took a view that sale consideration of such land was Rs. 1,48,00,000/-. After giving the benefit of indexed cost of acquisition of Rs. 8,71,697/-, “Long Term Capital Gain” (“LTCG” for short) in the hands of the assessee worked

Shri Ashokji Chanduji Thakor, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-3(3)(1), Ahmedabad

ITA 212/AHD/2020[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Jul 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Assessing Officer took a view that sale consideration of such land was Rs. 1,48,00,000/-. After giving the benefit of indexed cost of acquisition of Rs. 8,71,697/-, “Long Term Capital Gain” (“LTCG” for short) in the hands of the assessee worked

Shri Ashokji Chanduji Thakor, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-3(3)(1), Ahmedabad

ITA 211/AHD/2020[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Jul 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Assessing Officer took a view that sale consideration of such land was Rs. 1,48,00,000/-. After giving the benefit of indexed cost of acquisition of Rs. 8,71,697/-, “Long Term Capital Gain” (“LTCG” for short) in the hands of the assessee worked

Shri Rohitji Chanduji Thakor, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-3(3)(1), Ahmedabad

ITA 210/AHD/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Assessing Officer took a view that sale consideration of such land was Rs. 1,48,00,000/-. After giving the benefit of indexed cost of acquisition of Rs. 8,71,697/-, “Long Term Capital Gain” (“LTCG” for short) in the hands of the assessee worked

Vijaya Durga Penumala, Rajahmundry vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Rajahmundry

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

ITA 238/VIZ/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam31 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.237/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2016-17)

For Appellant: Sri C. Subrahmanyam, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154

assessment order, observed that since the assessee did not furnish the purchase document and the year of purchase of the property, indexed cost of acquisition cannot be ascertained and is treated as NIL. Accordingly, the Ld. AO completed the assessment by making addition of Rs. 44,12,340/- [the assessee

Vijaya Durga Penumala, Rajahmundry vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Rajahmundry

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

ITA 237/VIZ/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam31 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.237/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2016-17)

For Appellant: Sri C. Subrahmanyam, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154

assessment order, observed that since the assessee did not furnish the purchase document and the year of purchase of the property, indexed cost of acquisition cannot be ascertained and is treated as NIL. Accordingly, the Ld. AO completed the assessment by making addition of Rs. 44,12,340/- [the assessee

Rakesh Kumar Somani, Khandwa vs. ITO-1, Khandwa

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

ITA 215/IND/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Manish Boradrakesh Kumar Somani, Ito-1, 10, Ramganj Road, Khandwa Vs. Khandwa (M.P) (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Azgps3988J Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 29.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 31.07.2024 O R D E R

Section 133ASection 147

Rs.91 lakh. Ld. A.O if treating the land as capital asset then should have also made the addition for the difference between the indexed cost of acquisition of land and consideration as per sale deed. But there is no discussion about the same. It means that Ld. A.O has accepted

Samarjit Singh Chabra, Chennai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward 14(1), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1646/CHNY/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jul 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1623, 1624, 1625 & 1646/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2008-09 & W.T.A. Nos. 43 & 44/Chny/2018 Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2008-09 Shri Samarijit Singh Chabra, Vs. The Income Tax Officer/ No. K-10, Sangath Apartments, Wealth Tax Officer, Mgr Nagar, Velachery, Non Corporate Ward – 14(1), Chennai 600 042. Chennai. [Pan: Bfops1703Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 08.05.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Four Income Tax Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders All Dated 26.02.2018 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 14, Chennai For The Assessment Years 2007-08, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2008-09. 2. Since, Issues Raised In All The Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of The Both The Parties, We Proceed

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 142(1)

considering the agreement of Sale cum General Power of Attorney dated 24.10.2008, he held that the sale is completed. Accordingly, by allowing indexed cost of acquisition, the Assessing Officer determined the capital gains at ₹.2,34,72,242/-. 6 I.T.A. Nos.1623-1625 & 1646 & WTA 43-44/Chny/18 14. Having aggrieved

Samarjit Singh Chabra, Chennai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward 14(1), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1625/CHNY/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1623, 1624, 1625 & 1646/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2008-09 & W.T.A. Nos. 43 & 44/Chny/2018 Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2008-09 Shri Samarijit Singh Chabra, Vs. The Income Tax Officer/ No. K-10, Sangath Apartments, Wealth Tax Officer, Mgr Nagar, Velachery, Non Corporate Ward – 14(1), Chennai 600 042. Chennai. [Pan: Bfops1703Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 08.05.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Four Income Tax Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders All Dated 26.02.2018 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 14, Chennai For The Assessment Years 2007-08, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2008-09. 2. Since, Issues Raised In All The Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of The Both The Parties, We Proceed

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 142(1)

considering the agreement of Sale cum General Power of Attorney dated 24.10.2008, he held that the sale is completed. Accordingly, by allowing indexed cost of acquisition, the Assessing Officer determined the capital gains at ₹.2,34,72,242/-. 6 I.T.A. Nos.1623-1625 & 1646 & WTA 43-44/Chny/18 14. Having aggrieved

Samarjit Singh Chabra, Chennai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward 14(1), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1624/CHNY/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jul 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1623, 1624, 1625 & 1646/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2008-09 & W.T.A. Nos. 43 & 44/Chny/2018 Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2008-09 Shri Samarijit Singh Chabra, Vs. The Income Tax Officer/ No. K-10, Sangath Apartments, Wealth Tax Officer, Mgr Nagar, Velachery, Non Corporate Ward – 14(1), Chennai 600 042. Chennai. [Pan: Bfops1703Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 08.05.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Four Income Tax Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders All Dated 26.02.2018 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 14, Chennai For The Assessment Years 2007-08, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2008-09. 2. Since, Issues Raised In All The Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of The Both The Parties, We Proceed

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 142(1)

considering the agreement of Sale cum General Power of Attorney dated 24.10.2008, he held that the sale is completed. Accordingly, by allowing indexed cost of acquisition, the Assessing Officer determined the capital gains at ₹.2,34,72,242/-. 6 I.T.A. Nos.1623-1625 & 1646 & WTA 43-44/Chny/18 14. Having aggrieved

Samarjit Singh Chabra, Chennai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward 14(1), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1623/CHNY/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jul 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1623, 1624, 1625 & 1646/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2008-09 & W.T.A. Nos. 43 & 44/Chny/2018 Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2008-09 Shri Samarijit Singh Chabra, Vs. The Income Tax Officer/ No. K-10, Sangath Apartments, Wealth Tax Officer, Mgr Nagar, Velachery, Non Corporate Ward – 14(1), Chennai 600 042. Chennai. [Pan: Bfops1703Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 08.05.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Four Income Tax Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders All Dated 26.02.2018 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 14, Chennai For The Assessment Years 2007-08, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2008-09. 2. Since, Issues Raised In All The Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of The Both The Parties, We Proceed

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 142(1)

considering the agreement of Sale cum General Power of Attorney dated 24.10.2008, he held that the sale is completed. Accordingly, by allowing indexed cost of acquisition, the Assessing Officer determined the capital gains at ₹.2,34,72,242/-. 6 I.T.A. Nos.1623-1625 & 1646 & WTA 43-44/Chny/18 14. Having aggrieved

Margi Joy Desi, Mumbai vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2377/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Shyam Saboo, CAFor Respondent: Shri Nayanjyoti Nath, Sr. DR
Section 54

consideration of Rs. 2,15,00,000/- and has computed a LTCG of Rs. 1,22,15,699/- after deducting the indexed cost of acquisition and cost of improvement. The assessee had claimed the entire capital gain as exempt from tax under section 54 for the reason that

Hirak Sarkar, Hooghly vs. ACIT, Cir. 23(1), Hooghly

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

ITA 892/KOL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: The Ld Cit(Appeals) As His Mother Was Not Well Because Of Prolonged Disease Was Going Under Medical Supervision And

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234Section 250Section 50C(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

long- term capital gain of Rs. 40,162/-. The reported sale value of the property was Rs. 2,75,000/- and the indexed cost of acquisition was Rs. 2,34,838/-. According to details from the AR and the ITS database, the property was registered at a market value ... total market value of property at Rs. 31,40,000/-, resulting in a proportionate sale value of Rs. 9,18,129/-. The indexed cost of acquisition was 2,34,838, leading to a calculated LTCG of Rs. 6,83,291 (Rs. 9,18,129/- (-) Rs. 2,34,838/-). The difference

Splendour Villa Makers Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir-12(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 734/KOL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 734/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2015-2016 Splendour Villa Makers Pvt. Ltd.,……………Appellant Flat-4D, Lansdown Heights, 6, Sarat Bose Road, Bhowanipur, Kolkata-700020 [Pan:Aahcs9726M] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,..…Respondent Circle-12(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: Shri Miraj D. Shah, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri B.K. Singh, Addl. Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : June 05, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 25, 2024 O R D E R

Section 115J

Account prepared as per Companies Act. 5 Splendour Villa Makers Pvt. Ltd. (3) There is no provision of taking indexed cost of acquisition or indexed cost of improvement while preparing the P&L Account as per companies Act and such adjustment are also not provided in the section 115JB ... Court, we observe that Hon’ble Court has held that there is no provision under the Act to prevent the asessee from claiming indexed cost of acquisition on the sale of asset, in case, where the assessee is subjected to section 115JB of the Act. Hon’ble Court has thus

Late Sh. Banwari Lal Soothwal, Through Legal Heir Sh. Shyam Lal Soothwal, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-1(5), Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is Allowed

ITA 845/JPR/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Jul 2024AY 2011-12
Section 147Section 148Section 250

similar issue was raised in AY 2012-13 where no addition was made. He has further erred in not allowing the deduction for indexed cost of acquisition in computing the long term capital gain and by substituting the actual sales consideration of Rs.44,45,326/- with the value assessed

Dinesh Sunderji Shah, Mumbai vs. Assessing Officer, NFAC, Delhi

In the result both the appeals are allowed

ITA 275/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ashok L. Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 56(2)Section 56(2)(X)

purchase amount of ₹3,36,60,000/- on purchase date i.e. on 20th September, 2010, same was indexed to the current year and indexed cost of acquisition of ₹10,96,46,946/-, was determined resulting into Long Term Capital Loss of ₹3,39,66,946/-. The assessee supported the sale

Dinesh Sunderji Shah, Mumbai vs. Assessing Officer, Ward-15(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result both the appeals are allowed

ITA 274/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ashok L. Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 56(2)Section 56(2)(X)

purchase amount of ₹3,36,60,000/- on purchase date i.e. on 20th September, 2010, same was indexed to the current year and indexed cost of acquisition of ₹10,96,46,946/-, was determined resulting into Long Term Capital Loss of ₹3,39,66,946/-. The assessee supported the sale