“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

Nithin Pandurang Dhond, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 661/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 45(2)Section 48

Fair Market Value (FMV) of the land on the date of conversion, i.e., full value of consideration received: Rs.7,61,53,000/- Less: Indexed cost of acquisition - Rs.1,03,83,810/- --------------------- Short term capital gain @30% Rs.6,57,69,190/- (less than 36 months) ============== 5. Before

Prithviraj Lekkad Mallikarjun, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2)(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 1050/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jul 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri G.S. Prashanth, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 226(3)Section 50CSection 54Section 55(2)(b)Section 55A

Rs.87,23,170/- under the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. a) The learned authorities below erred in 35470065 disallowing the indexed cost of acquisition of Rs.11,52,67,650/- by holding that the appellant has not furnished any details or evidence for cost of acquisition under the facts

Prasad Dattatrya Thakar, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 14, Pune

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

ITA 248/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Astha Chandra & Shree G.D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak

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

sale of property a sum of Rs.1,07,50,000 a long term capital gain, without allowing the deduction on account of indexed cost of acquisition as per the provision of law. 3. On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, learned Assessing Officer erred

Bright Securities Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed with no order as to

ITA 465/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Meena, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 133ASection 144BSection 147Section 148

reasons—Applicability of correct provision—Assessee had filed return of income disclosing a sale consideration and after adjusting cost of improvement and indexed cost of acquisition, offered a sum by way of capital gain—AO noted that as per an information available with office, assessee had sold an immovable property

Shankar Sewani, New Market vs. Assessing Officer, Aaykar Bhawan

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

ITA 25/IND/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore12 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishri Shankar Sewani, Dcit-1(1), 10 Kala Niketan, Bhopal New Market, Vs. T.T. Nagar, Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Adkps6959H Assessee By Ms. Nisha Lahoti, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 10.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 12.07.2024 O R D E R

Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 234BSection 3

property. For verification purpose, assessee was required to provide copies of purchased deeds of properties which were sold by the assessee so that indexed cost of acquisition may be examined. Assessee was also required to provide copy of registered deed of property worth Rs.13,38,300/- alongwith other supporting documents

Sonia Pathak Khanna, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-25(1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1193/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am Income Tax Officer, Sonia Pathak Khanna, Ward 25(1)(2) Flat No.14, 5Th Floor, Room No. 204, 2Nd Floor, Kodinar, Model Town, Off Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To C- J.P. Road, Four Bungalows, 43 Vs. Andheri (W), Mumbai-400 G Block, Bandra Kurla 053 Complex, Bandra(E), Mumbai-051 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabpp6359C Assessee By : Shri K Gopal, Ar : Shri R.R. Makwana, Dr Revenue By Date Of Hearing: 13.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.07.2024

For Appellant: Shri K Gopal, AR

Section 143(3)Section 541Section 54F

gain based on letter of allotment dated 12/08/2017. 09. Capital gain computed by the assessee was sales consideration of Rs 57 lakhs, less indexed cost of acquisition of Rs 32,01663/-, resulting into capital gain of s 24,98,337/-. From this it claimed deduction ... lacs sold to M/s Sonai Pathak Khanna was purchased in A.Y. 2009- 10 at a cost of ₹21,54,900/-. The index cost of acquisition is ₹32,01,663/- and therefore, capital gain of ₹24,98,337/- is derived. The assessee has made an investment in new house property

Sandhya Suresh Dahivelkar, Pune vs. ITO, Ward 14(3), Pune

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

ITA 341/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.341/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sandhya Suresh Dahivelkar, Vs. Ito, Ward-14(3), Pune. Flat No.6/624, Clover Citadel Wanowrie, Pune- 411040. Pan : Asypd2124N Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Dattatraya Suresh Kusumkar : Revenue By : Shri Sourabh Nayak Date Of Hearing : 27.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.07.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28.02.2023 Passed By Ld Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Present Appeal Is Filed Belatedly I.E. With The Delay Of 297 Days. The Appellant Furnished An Application/ Affidavit Praying For Condonation Of Delay In The Circumstances Mentioned Therein. We Are Of The Considered Opinion That The Reasons Mentioned By The Assessee Constitute Reasonable Cause For Not Filing The Appeal Within

For Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak

Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 54Section 55A

Term Capital Gains of Rs.43,57,789/-. It was submitted before us that the AO & LD CIT(A)/NFAC has only allowed the indexed cost of acquisition of the plot Rs.34,78,211/-, the cost of the new house Rs.1,39,00,000/-, stamp duty & registration charges Rs.8

Palanisamy Rani, Erode vs. PCIT-1, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1490/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 1490/Chny/2023 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Principal Commissioner Of Palanisamy Rani, V. Income Tax, 38, Emm Road-2, Chennimalai Coimbatore. Road, Erode – 638 001. [Pan:Biqpr-2991-L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. T. Vasudevan, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. V. Nandakumar, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09.05.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 10.07.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. V. Nandakumar, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54F

order with a direction to AO to revise the same: :-4-: ITA. No:1490/Chny/2023 “The AO had disallowed the assessee’s claim of indexed cost of acquisition of building Rs.12,96,709/- and taxed her share of sale consideration of building @ 20% considering it as long-term capital gain. However ... capital gain and Income tax thereon) during the Assessment year 2017-18, with the assessee’s share of 35.96%. The assessee had claimed indexed cost of acquisition of Rs.20,78,719/-, Rs.3,13,718/- and Rs.12,96,709/- on account of land, RCC Roof and ACC roof respectively. Further

Seema Heera, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD) (It) - 2(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 517/MUM/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Judicialmember & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Dharan Gandhi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Rajeshwari Menon, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 271Section 274Section 54

respect of capital gains on sale of immovable property 5. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not even allowing the deduction of indexed cost of acquisition while computing capital gains and in not treating the capital gains as long term capital gains. 6. The Ld. CIT(A) erred ... assessee had submitted a statement of computation of long term capital gain for A.Y. 2010-11 wherein after taking indexed cost of acquisition, long term capital gain calculated at Rs. 93,17,462/- against which deduction u/s 54 of the Act had been claimed in respect of investment made

Shri Anurag Lakshman Pande, Rajouri Garden vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Int. Tax .2(2) (2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 2046/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jul 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2020-21

property, as against the 2 | P a g e AY: 2020-21 . sale consideration of Rs.59,60,000/-, the assessee has set off indexed cost of acquisition of Rs.69,46,598/- and claimed long term capital loss of Rs.9,86,598/-. 4. After calling for and examining the registered sale ... acquisition of the property by the assessee was Rs.21,65,280/- along with stamp duty of Rs.3,41,040/-. Therefore, he rejected the indexed cost of acquisition claimed by the assessee and re-computed the capital gain by taking the cost of acquisition at Rs. 21,65,280/- and allowing

ACIT, Circle, Shimla vs. Shri Vinod Sharma, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1449/CHANDI/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Dr Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1449/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 The Acit, Vs. Shri Vinod Sharma, बनाम B-1/3, Circle, Safdarjang Enclave, Shimla New Delhi 110029 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Abkps1560N अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent (Hybrid Mode ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Sh. Vishal Mohan, Sr. Advocate With Shri Ahninav Bazwaria, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal, Cit Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 10.06.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09.07.2024

For Appellant: Sh. Vishal Mohan, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR

Section 54F

crores. As the said property was a long-term capital asset, the assessee claimed benefit of indexation whereby the indexed cost of acquisition was arrived at Rs. 83.34 lakhs resulting in capital gain of Rs. 7.16 crores. The assessee further entered into an agreement with a builder, namely

Uthuman Sahib Shaji, Pathanapuram vs. DCIT, Circle, International Taxation, Trivandrum

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

ITA 998/COCH/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin04 Jul 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: N o n eFor Respondent: Sri Sanjit Kumar Das, D.R

Section 144C

cost of improvement, which the assessee failed to produce. Hence, he computed long term capital gains at Rs.4,17,20,483/- after granting indexed cost of acquisition at Rs.95,59,070/-. Before the ld. DRP, assessee produced the valuation report of immovable property from M/s. Y-Shakh Project Management & Consultancy

Shri Kamlesh Purohit, Karamdi vs. ITO, Ratlam

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

ITA 150/IND/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore04 Jul 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishri Kamlesh Purohit, L/H & Ito S/O Late Ramsingh Purohit, Ratlam Vs. 89/1, Village Karamdi, Ratlam (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Bbbpp5709A Assessee By Shri Manoj Fadnis, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 03.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 04.07.2024 O R D E R

Section 144

erred in confirming the order of Id.ITO-1, Ratlam, who computed the capital gains on sale of agricultural land without deducting the indexed cost of acquisition and the cost of construction of house from the sale proceeds of the said agricultural land and has failed to appreciate the documents filed ... Long Term Capital Gain on sale of agriculture land. He has further submitted that the Assessing Officer has even not allowed the index cost of acquisition of the said land and cost of construction of the house from the sale proceeds of the agriculture land and therefore, making the addition

Manick Chandra Paul, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 8(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 614/KOL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Chandan Das, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 2(47)Section 250Section 55ASection 80

have taken any cognizance of the valuer's report submitted by the assessee from a Govt. Regd. Approved Valuer for the purpose of indexed cost of acquisition and FMV of the property sold simply on the suspicion of guess work and to provide undue tax advantage to the assessee ... sale of the said property by showing value of the property at Rs.59,42,144/- as considered by the stamp duty authority and indexed cost of acquisition of the property at Rs.59,51,382/- on the basis of the FMV determined by the registered valuer, resulting in decrease of capital

Jeetendra Chandrakant Nayak, Nagpur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Incom Tax(OSD), Nagpur

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

ITA 368/NAG/2023[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur27 Jun 2024AY 2015-2016

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

For Appellant: Shri M.G.Moryani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Singhai, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 250Section 54F

total consideration of Rs.1,14,55,200/- which was purchased during the financial year 2010-11 for Rs.21,31,200/-. Applying indexation, the indexed cost of acquisition works out to Rs.30,69,408/- [2131200 X 1023/711]. Accordingly, the long term capital gain works out to Rs.83.89.792

Sunethra Rao, Canada Foreign vs. Income Tax Officer, International Taxation, Ward-2(1), Bengaluru

ITA 155/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kumar .H, CA

Section 133(6)Section 54Section 54E

others through a will executed by Smt. Belpu Vani, mother of the assessee, on 27.01.2010. 2.3 The assessee computed and claimed indexed cost of acquisition of the property at Rs.81,28,125/- i.e., 1/3rd share of indexed cost (21,67,500/- * 1125/100) adopting base value/cost of the land Rs.250

Vivek Bali, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle Int. Taxation 1(1)(2), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1416/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jun 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Ms. Shivangi Kumar, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 54Section 69A

case and in law, the authorities below have erred in confirming the addition on account of disallowance of Rs.34,66,946/- from the indexed cost of acquisition, claimed as a deduction by the assessee in computing Long Term Capital Gain. The action of the authorities below is wrong, illegal, misconceived ... acquisition as on 2,50,26,000 2,37,87,805 01/04/2001 Cost of Improvement 2,75,800 Nil (F.Y 2003-04) Index Cost of Acquisition 7,07,81,277 6,66,05,854 (70072800+708477) (2,50,26,000*280/100 = 7,00,72,800 (2,37,87,805*280/100

Income Tax Officer, Pune vs. Prakash Ramkrishna Pophale, Pune

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

ITA 283/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Prasad BhandariFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak, Addl.CIT

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 54Section 54(1)

Cost o fAcquisitions Rs.72,92,000 4.Cost of Improvement Rs.30,42,700 (Construction) 5. Year of cost of improvement F.Y. 2015-16 6. Indexed cost of acquisition Rs.1,04,50,318 7. Indexed cost of improvement Rs.31,66,547 8. Date of transfer (Sale 27-6-2016 Deed enclosed

Sh. Sher Singh, Alwar vs. ITO, Ward-1(4), Alwar

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

ITA 629/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 10(37)Section 148Section 50CSection 50C(2)Section 54F

against actual consideration of Rs.13,80,000/- without referring the matter to DVO u/s 50C(2) of the Act (ii) computing the indexed cost of acquisition of land at 2 SHRI SHER SINGH VS ITO, WARD 1(4), JAIPUR Rs.1,02,050/- as against Rs.29,43,750/- claimed ... compulsory acquisition of agriculture land by UIT, Alwar at Rs.3,66,100/- as against Rs.12,850/- computed by the assessee by computing the indexed cost of acquisition at Rs.78,500/- as against Rs.4,31,750/- claimed by the assessee. He has further erred in not considering the fact that capital

Naresh Vasantrai Trivedi, Nagpur vs. ACIT, Central Circle 1(3), Nagpur

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

ITA 108/NAG/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur20 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Kapil HiraniFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya

Section 132Section 271(1)(c)

Appellant by Rs. 11,18,783 on account of long-term capital gains on sale of Flat without giving the benefit of indexed cost of acquisition which is illegal, and which deserves to be allowed in the interest of justice. 4) The Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in invoking