← 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

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

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

ITA 107/NAG/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur20 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

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

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

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

ITA 106/NAG/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur20 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

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

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

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

ITA 105/NAG/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur20 Jun 2024AY 2010-11

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

Sanjay Namdev Tilekar, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 14(5) Pune, Pune

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

ITA 382/PUN/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Jun 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.382/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10 Sanjay Namdev Tilekar, Vs. Ito, Ward-14(5), Pune. Row House No.6, Manjari Green, Manjari Stud Farm, Phase One, Pune- 412307. Pan : Ahwpt3174F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Pramod S. Shingte Revenue By : Shri Sourabh Nayak Date Of Hearing : 29.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.06.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28.03.2023 Passed By Ld Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi For The Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The Present Appeal Is Filed Belatedly With 281 Days. The Appellant Furnished An Affidavit Along With Death Certificate Of His Wife, Praying For Condonation Of Delay Of 281 Days In The Circumstances Mentioned Therein. Ld. Dr Could Not Controvert The Averments Made In The Above Affidavit. We Are Of The Considered

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)Section 54BSection 55A

initio. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Assessing Officer erred in re-computing index cost of acquisition thereby reducing the same by Rs.55,92,386/-, the action is bad in law as under section 55A of the Income ... After considering the reply of the assessee, the AO made addition of Rs.68,38,740/- by reducing cost of acquisition & indexed cost of acquisition & by denying deduction of investment in new house, and passed the assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the IT Act on 30.11.2016 determining total

Mohammed Sabir Babubhai Shaikh, Ahmedabad vs. ITO Ward 6(1), Jaipur

ITA 687/JPR/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Jun 2024AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri Rohan SoganiFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Chaudhary, Addl. CIT (V. C)
Section 147Section 148

amounting to Rs. 7,09,305 on the property. III. Accordingly, there was no capital gain on sale of the property, considering the Indexed Cost of Acquisition and Improvement. Working in this regard is as under- [PB : 6] S.No. Particulars (A) Sale Consideration as per Sale Deed Less: (B) Cost

Shital Pravin Jaikrishnia, Nashik vs. ITO, Ward-1(3), Nashik

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 681/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.681/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Shital Pravin Jaikrishnia, The Income Tax Officer, 37 38 39 40, Aditya Avenue, V Ward-1(3), Nashik. Tidke Colony, S Nashik – 422002. Pan: Adipj1793J Appellant/Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Kishor B Phadke – Ar Revenue By Shri Sourabh Nayak – Addl.Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 31/05/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 04/06/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2015-16 Dated 20.02.2024 Emanating From The Penalty Order U/S.271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 13.05.2019. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. The Learned Cit(A)-Nfac Erred In Law In Law & On Facts In Confirming The Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Ita, 1961 To Rs 10,13,112 (Being 100% Of Tax Evaded) As Against The Penalty Of Rs. 20,64,224 (Being 200% Of Tax Evaded For Concealment Of Income). The Learned I-T Authorities Ought To Have Appreciated That There Is No Any Concealment Of Income.

Section 144Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 50C

purchased in F.Y.2008-09 for Rs.35,96,794/-. Therefore, the assessee pleaded before the ld.CIT(A) that AO may be directed to allow index cost of acquisition. Ld.CIT(A) vide his order dated 29.03.2024 directed the AO to allow deduction of Index Cost of Acquisition while calculating the capital gain ... order u/s 144 r.w.s. 147, dated 11.12.2018 : Rs.39,23,500/- Less: Relief allowed by the CIT(A), NFAC. : Rs.40,36,671/- (indexed cost of acquisition of Rs.40,36,671/-) Revised Income : Rs.(-)1,13,171/- 4.1 However, the AO levied penalty u/sec.271(1)(c) of the Act vide order dated

Snehasish Bhaumik, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir. 50(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1429/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 1429/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Snehasish Bhaumik Asstt. Commissioner Of Income A-3/2, Labony Estate Vs Tax, Circle – 50(1), Kolkata Salt Lake, Bidhannagar North Kolkata - 700064 [Pan : Adypb8516H] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Advocate Revenue By : Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, Jcit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 07/03/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 04/06/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 31/10/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Sole Issue Raised In This Appeal Is About The Correctness Of The Amount Of Capital Gain Arising From Sale Of Flat Owned By The Assessee. 3. Facts In Brief Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Filed Its Return Of Income For Assessment Year 2014-15 On 30/09/2014 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.10,40,570/- & The Same Included Income From Capital Gain At Rs.4,12,278/-. Thereafter, The Assessment Was Completed U/S 143(3) Of The Act On 26/10/2016 & The Assessment Records Were The Subject Matter Before The Ld. Pr. Cit In The Proceedings U/S 263 Of The Act & After Culmination Of The Revisionary Proceedings, Directions Were Given To The Ld. Assessing Officer By The Ld. Pr. Cit To Pass A Fresh

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, JCIT, Sr. D/R
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263

duty value as on the date of registration i.e., 12/12/2011 at Rs.41,39,900/- as purchase cost for the purpose of calculating the index cost of acquisition but the actual cost incurred is only Rs.23,27,257/-. Though the assessee filed various details but the ld. Assessing Officer calculated ... income tax return, assessee has wrongly adopted the stamp value as on the date of registration at Rs.41,39,900/- and the indexed cost of acquisition should have been calculated on the basis of purchase of Rs.23,27,257/-. On the other hand, the ld. D/R vehemently argued supporting

Dilip Kapur, United States of America vs. ACIT, Circle 2(1)(2) International Taxation, New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2059/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumarshri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, Adv. and Shri Aman Garg, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vijay B Vasanta, CIT- DR
Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 144CSection 234D

facts and circumstances of the case, the learned AO has erred both on facts and in law in disallowing the indexed cost of acquisition by the amount of Rs. 1,97,79,784/- claimed by the assessee while computing the income under the head long term capital gain ... Thereafter, assessee filed its return of income on 17.09.2020 declaring long term capital gain of Rs 4,28,60,146/- after claiming indexed cost of acquisition of Rs 6,52,96,660 indexed cost of improvement of Rs. 65.36.394/- and cost of transfer & other misc. expenses

Sudhakar Reddy Mettu, Usa vs. ACIT., International Taxation-1, Hyderabad

In the result, appeals filed by both the assessees are dismissed

ITA 232/HYD/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 May 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.231/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Smt. Lekha Reddy Mettu Vs. Acit (International Usa/Hyderabad Taxation-1) Pan:Bnhpm0166N Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.232/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Sudhakar Reddy Vs. Acit (International Mettu, Usa/ Hyderabad Taxation-1) Pan:Bnhpm0447G Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Ca Akshay Surana राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Jeeval Lal Lavidiya, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 27/05/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 29/05/2024

For Appellant: CA Akshay SuranaFor Respondent: : Shri Jeeval Lal Lavidiya, CIT(DR)
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 270ASection 50CSection 54F

computation of Long Term Capital Gain is Rs.64,57,000/- and the assessee will get the benefit of deduction of indexed cost of acquisition and construction/improvement when the details become available. 4. During the FY 2016-17 relevant to AY 2017-18, income chargeable to tax in the hands ... which the AR of the assessee appeared before the Assessing Officer and accepted the deemed sale consideration at Rs.50,00,000/- and claimed indexed cost of acquisition of Rs.5,28,000/- and submitted that the assessee is eligible for claiming exemption u/s 54F of Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. However

Lekha Reddy Mettu, Usa vs. ACIT., International Taxation-1, Hyderabad

In the result, appeals filed by both the assessees are dismissed

ITA 231/HYD/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 May 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.231/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Smt. Lekha Reddy Mettu Vs. Acit (International Usa/Hyderabad Taxation-1) Pan:Bnhpm0166N Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.232/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Sudhakar Reddy Vs. Acit (International Mettu, Usa/ Hyderabad Taxation-1) Pan:Bnhpm0447G Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Ca Akshay Surana राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Jeeval Lal Lavidiya, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 27/05/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 29/05/2024

For Appellant: CA Akshay SuranaFor Respondent: : Shri Jeeval Lal Lavidiya, CIT(DR)
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 270ASection 50CSection 54F

computation of Long Term Capital Gain is Rs.64,57,000/- and the assessee will get the benefit of deduction of indexed cost of acquisition and construction/improvement when the details become available. 4. During the FY 2016-17 relevant to AY 2017-18, income chargeable to tax in the hands ... which the AR of the assessee appeared before the Assessing Officer and accepted the deemed sale consideration at Rs.50,00,000/- and claimed indexed cost of acquisition of Rs.5,28,000/- and submitted that the assessee is eligible for claiming exemption u/s 54F of Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. However

Neeraj Sharma, Ghaziabad vs. ITO, Ward-2(5), Ghaziabad

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

ITA 841/DEL/2024[10000]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 May 2024

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2011-12] Neeraj Sharma, Vs Ito, Ch.No.206-207, Ansal Satyam Rdc, Ward-2(5), Rajnagar, Ghaziabad, Ghaziabad. Uttar Pradesh-201002. Pan-Aynps1581M Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Akhilesh Aggarwal, Adv. & Shri Govind Aggarwal, Adv. Respondent By Shri Om Parkash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 22.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 29.05.2024

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 54Section 54F

year, assessee sold an immovable property to M/s Madhuban Realcons Pvt Ltd for Rs 20000000 and there is no Information record about the Indexed cost of acquisition and period of holding of the impugned property further the impugned property is a capital asset being land. In the absence

Anubhav Kapoor, Lucknow vs. Income Tax Officer - 2(1)(1), Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2364/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2016-17]

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 50CSection 50C(2)Section 54Section 54(2)Section 54B

Devi Kapoor and the assessee had worked out the capital gains as under:- Sale consideration of the property Rs.1,50,00,000/- Less: Indexed cost of acquisition Rs. 43,56,132/- Long Term Capital Gain Rs.1,06,43,868/- Less: Deduction

Vidyavathi Manthravadi, United Kingdom vs. Commissioner of Income Tax(It and Tp), Hyderabad

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

ITA 295/VIZ/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.292/Viz/2023 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year :2013-14) Sivakama Sundar Manthravadi, Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax United Kingdom. (It & Tp), Pan: Avspm 1372 N Hyderabad. (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.295/Viz/2023 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year : 2013-14) Vidyavathi Manthravadi, Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax United Kingdom. (It & Tp), Pan: Avspm 1370 Q Hyderabad. (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधर्थीकीओरसे/ Assessees By : Ms. P. Chandini, Ar प्रत्यधर्थीकीओरसे/ Revenue By : Dr. Satyasai Rath, Cit-Dr सुिवधईकीतधरीख/ Date Of Hearing : 27/03/2024 घोर्णधकीतधरीख/Date Of : 28/05/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R Per S. Balakrishnan:

For Respondent: Dr. Satyasai Rath, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 54Section 54E

This question assumes paramount importance since the period of holding will decide whether the capital gain is long term or shorter and the indexed cost of acquisition and improvement thereto in respect of these assets will vary depending upon the period of holding. The long term capital gains could ... time of assessment. Based on the holding period of these assets, the capital gain is long term or short term and the indexed cost of acquisition could be computed. Likewise in order to claim the indexed cost of improvement necessary documents in support of the improvements done and the expenditure

Sivakama Sundar Manthravadi, United Kingdom vs. Commissioner of Income Tax(It and Tp), Hyderabad

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

ITA 292/VIZ/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.292/Viz/2023 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year :2013-14) Sivakama Sundar Manthravadi, Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax United Kingdom. (It & Tp), Pan: Avspm 1372 N Hyderabad. (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.295/Viz/2023 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year : 2013-14) Vidyavathi Manthravadi, Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax United Kingdom. (It & Tp), Pan: Avspm 1370 Q Hyderabad. (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधर्थीकीओरसे/ Assessees By : Ms. P. Chandini, Ar प्रत्यधर्थीकीओरसे/ Revenue By : Dr. Satyasai Rath, Cit-Dr सुिवधईकीतधरीख/ Date Of Hearing : 27/03/2024 घोर्णधकीतधरीख/Date Of : 28/05/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R Per S. Balakrishnan:

For Respondent: Dr. Satyasai Rath, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 54Section 54E

This question assumes paramount importance since the period of holding will decide whether the capital gain is long term or shorter and the indexed cost of acquisition and improvement thereto in respect of these assets will vary depending upon the period of holding. The long term capital gains could ... time of assessment. Based on the holding period of these assets, the capital gain is long term or short term and the indexed cost of acquisition could be computed. Likewise in order to claim the indexed cost of improvement necessary documents in support of the improvements done and the expenditure

Sukhpal Singh Ahluwalia, Mumbai vs. ITO (International Taxation) Ward 1(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4139/MUM/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm Income Tax Officer Sukhpal Singh Ahluwalia (International Tax) Ward 6/24, Milan Building, 1(1)(1), 87, Tardeo Road, Room No.1817A, 18 Th Vs. Opp. Tardeo A C Market, Floor, Air India Building, Mumbai-400 034 Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Azupa6884D Assessee By : Shri Rashmikant C. Modi & Ms. Ketki Rajeshirke, Ars Revenue By : Shri Soumendu Kumar Sash, Dr Date Of Hearing: 18.04.2024 27.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement :

For Appellant: Shri Rashmikant C. Modi &For Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Sash, DR
Section 112Section 115CSection 143Section 144C(5)Section 254Section 45Section 48Section 74

2/2/2015 18,45,00,000 21/5/2018 227242500 42742500 11992500 432 4/12/2015 12,96,00,000 21/5/2018 159624000 30024000 16757858 314100000 386866500 72766500 28750358 Indexed cost of acquisition 358116142 As the assessee has, long term carried forward capital losses ... 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. Thus, while calculating capital gain by applying provisions 027. of section

M/S Ludhiana Leasing Pvt. Ltd., Chandigarh vs. DCIT, CC-II, Chandigarh

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

ITA 241/CHANDI/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 May 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 241/Chd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2019-20 M/S Ludhiana Leasing Pvt.Ltd., बनाम The Dcit, Central Circle-Ii, #168, Sector 8, Chandigarh Chandigarh "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaacl6365N अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR
Section 115J

included to the book profits then the net book profit should be calculated after giving the assessee the benefit of indexed cost of acquisition on such asset. The ld. Counsel for the assessee in this respect has relied upon the following case laws: i. Hon’ble Karnataka High Court ... tenable. However, so far as the alternate contention of the ld. Counsel that the assessee is entitled to the benefit of indexed cost of acquisition in line with the provisions of section 48 of the Act is concerned, the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee

Sheela Ramchand Uttamchandani, Mumbai vs. ITO-30(2)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 3398/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh ShahFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Singh
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 54

present case, the assessee sold her residential flat on 31/07/2012 and earned Long Term Capital Gains of Rs.99,35,840/-, after considering the indexed cost of acquisition. On 29/07/2013, the assessee deposited an amount of Rs.1 crore in her account maintained under the Capital Gain Account Scheme with the State

Arun Kumar Jain, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle - 61(1), New Delhi

ITA 355/DEL/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2016-17 Arun Kumar Jain, Vs Acit, B-1, Green Park Extn., Circle-61(1), New Delhi – 110 016. New Delhi. Pan: Aafpj7509J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Mrs. Prem Lata Bansal, Sr. Adv., Shri Shivang Bansal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Kanav Bali, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 21.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.05.2024

For Appellant: Mrs. Prem Lata Bansal, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Kanav Bali, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 54

observation that bills and invoices have not been produced. Ld. CIT(A) equally erred in confirming the same. This resulted in reducing the indexed cost of acquisition of property. 4 3 The Ld. Assessing Officer grossly erred in restricting exemption under section 54 of the Income

Rita Sunil Shah, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer(It) 4(2)(1), Mumbai

The appeals are partly allowed

ITA 4070/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm The Income Tax Officer(It) Sunil Amritlal Shah 4(2)(1) C/O Vimal Punimiya & Room No. 1708, Co.,501, 17Th Floor, Vs. Niranjan, Air India Building, 99, Marine Drive, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400002 Mumbai 400021 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Hvnps5321F The Income Tax Officer(It) Rita Sunil Shah 4(2)(1) C/O Vimal Punimiya & Room No. 1708, Co.,501, 17Th Floor, Vs. Niranjan, Air India Building, 99, Marine Drive, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400002 Mumbai 400021 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Djgps8073B

For Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash–
Section 142Section 144Section 144CSection 147Section 148Section 254Section 271(1)(c)Section 54

erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) on the grounds of the variance in the calculation of indexed cost of acquisition of Rs.76,19,860/- by the assessee against the value of Rs. 68,50,486/- which was arrived at by the assessing officer thereby treating this ... from the sale of flat number 1802 was accepted as long- term capital gain. While computing the capital gain the assessee has taken indexed cost of acquisition at ₹ 7,619,860/– however the computation made by the learned assessing officer of the indexed cost of acquisition was arrived

Sunil Amritlal Shah, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer(It) 4(2)(1), Mumbai

The appeals are partly allowed

ITA 4069/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm The Income Tax Officer(It) Sunil Amritlal Shah 4(2)(1) C/O Vimal Punimiya & Room No. 1708, Co.,501, 17Th Floor, Vs. Niranjan, Air India Building, 99, Marine Drive, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400002 Mumbai 400021 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Hvnps5321F The Income Tax Officer(It) Rita Sunil Shah 4(2)(1) C/O Vimal Punimiya & Room No. 1708, Co.,501, 17Th Floor, Vs. Niranjan, Air India Building, 99, Marine Drive, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400002 Mumbai 400021 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Djgps8073B

For Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash–
Section 142Section 144Section 144CSection 147Section 148Section 254Section 271(1)(c)Section 54

erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) on the grounds of the variance in the calculation of indexed cost of acquisition of Rs.76,19,860/- by the assessee against the value of Rs. 68,50,486/- which was arrived at by the assessing officer thereby treating this ... from the sale of flat number 1802 was accepted as long- term capital gain. While computing the capital gain the assessee has taken indexed cost of acquisition at ₹ 7,619,860/– however the computation made by the learned assessing officer of the indexed cost of acquisition was arrived