← 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

Indira Pradeep Vardavat, Thane vs. ACIT, Circle 1, Thane

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

ITA 432/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 48Section 54

capital gains arising on revaluation of Shop premises owned by the partnership firm, M/s. Parmar & Associates at Thane, without granting appropriate deduction for indexed cost of acquisition of such premises and therefore the long term capital gains determined in the hands of the appellant is factually erroneous

Venkatesh Bomma, Hyderabad vs. ITO., (Int Taxn)-1, Hyderabad

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

ITA 62/HYD/2024[A Y 2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 May 2024

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.62/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15) Sri Venkatesh Bomma Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad (International Taxation)-1 Pan:Afhpb6561K Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P Rajeshwara Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Kumar Pranav, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 08/05/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 09/05/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri P Rajeshwara Rao, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Kumar Pranav, CIT(DR)
Section 144(1)Section 147Section 148Section 50C

comment and report. The Assessing Officer vide his remand report dated 7.8.2023 has verified the documents submitted by the assessee and accepted the indexed cost of acquisition of Rs.26,80,123/- based on the purchase consideration of Rs.14,50,000/- paid as per deed dated 30.03.2007. However ... capital gain by adopting the full value of consideration in terms of provisions of section 50C of the Act and also allow indexed cost of acquisition as claimed by the assessee towards consideration paid for purchase of property. However, rejected the indexed cost of improvement as claimed by the assessee

Neeru Mohan Nagpal, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, ITO Ward 2(3)

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 151/JPR/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 May 2024AY 2016-17
For Appellant: MS. Pallavi Khuntenta, (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Anoop Singh (Addl. CIT)
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(47)

correct view. When the asset is held as capital asset then there is no reasons to disbelieve the consequential claim being the indexed cost of acquisition paid by the assessee. When the cost is disputed the claim of cost cannot be denied merely the assessee has cancelled the booking

Vinodkumar Agarwal, Ajmer vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Ajmer

In the result, the four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 257/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Porwal (C.A.) (V.H.)For Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar (CIT) a
Section 10Section 127Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153Section 153A

same is computed at Rs. 8,79,579/- against that sale consideration the assessee has deducted the indexed cost of acquisition of Rs. 6,19,538/- if the same is considered the amount offered by the assessee at Rs. 2,60,041/- [ Rs. 8,79,579/- less

Vinodkumar Agarwal, Ajmer vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Ajmer

In the result, the four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 256/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Porwal (C.A.) (V.H.)For Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar (CIT) a
Section 10Section 127Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153Section 153A

same is computed at Rs. 8,79,579/- against that sale consideration the assessee has deducted the indexed cost of acquisition of Rs. 6,19,538/- if the same is considered the amount offered by the assessee at Rs. 2,60,041/- [ Rs. 8,79,579/- less

Dilip Jaikumar Chandak, Amravati vs. ITO Ward-1, Amravati

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

ITA 48/NAG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur30 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang & Shri R.K. Panda

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. Moryani a/wFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Maratha
Section 143(3)Section 155(15)Section 250

under section 143(3) in terms of section 155(15) by adopting the fair market value determined by the DVO and reduced the indexed cost of acquisition of the property from ` 86,37,190 adopted by the assessee to ` 11,35,050 resulting in addition

Subhash Chand Kasera, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 47(1), New Delhi

Ground of Appeal 2 and 3 are dismissed

ITA 4092/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. M. Balaganesh & Ms. Madhumita Roy

Section 142Section 143(3)Section 54Section 54F

sold a plot of land lying and situated at Noida for a consideration of Rs.1,67,00,000/- and after deduction of the indexed cost of acquisition, the long term capital gain of Rs.1,29,04,523/- was computed. The assessee further claimed deduction

Punit Popat, Kolkata vs. Itb, NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 1359/KOL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No.1359/Kol/2023 Assessment Year : 2018-19 Punit Popat………………..….….…………............…...……………....Appellant C/O Subash Agarwal & Associates, Advocates, Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata- 7000069. [Pan: Aflpp3320E] Vs. Ito, Nfac, Delhi……….…….............................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Pradip Biswas, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 08, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 29, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 11.10.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1 For That The Ld. Cit(A) Was Not Justified In Passing The Order Ex Parte Without Affording Reasonable Opportunity Of Hearing. 2. For That The Ld. Cit(A) Was Not Justified In Confirming The Action Of The Ao In Denying The Deduction Claimed By The Assessee Of Rs. 4,38,673/- On Account Of Interest Of Housing Loan U/S 24(B) Of The Act.

Section 10(32)Section 24Section 250Section 57Section 80C

during the year. 4. For that the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the action of the AO in disallowing the indexed cost of acquisition to the tune of Rs.97,53,262/- under the head Long Term Capital Gain. 5. For that

D.Ramgopal, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(1), Coimbatore

The appeal stand partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 582/CHNY/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Apr 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.582/Chny/2022 (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Shri D. Ramagopal Acit बनाम C/O Mr. G.V. Jhabakh (Fca) Central Circle-1 157, P.M Swamy Colony, Coimbatore. / Vs. 5Th Street, Coimbatore-641 002. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Akgpr-3621-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Jhabakh (Ca)- Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som (Cit)-Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Final Hearing : 18-03-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25-04-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1.1 Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13 Arises Out Of An Order Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-19, Chennai [Cit(A)] On 25.05.2022 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S 143(3) R.W.S 153A Of The Act On 30.03.2016. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Read As Under: -

For Appellant: Shri Jhabakh (CA)- Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT)-Ld. DR
Section 131Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271F

CAPITAL GAIN CALCULATION ON COONOOR LAND SOLD TO SHALINI 6 CENTS 19/01/2012 Sale Consideration 645500 Less : Sales Expenses 32275 Net Consideration 613225 Less Indexed Cost of Acquisition 414124.82 160902/305*785 Less Indexed Cost of Improvement 312678/480785 Net Gain / Loss -312258.63 5.4 The claim of expenditure of Rs.32,275/- was denied ... denied. Finally, the gains were worked out by Ld. AO as under: - 19.01.2012 & Sale Consideration u/s 50C 645500 12.03.2012 Less Indexed cost of Acquisition 411388 159839*785/305 Long Term Capital Gains 234112 The same were brought to tax in the hands of the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) held that

Penupetruni Chinna Rao, Chennai vs. ITO, International Taxation, Ward-1(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal stand partly allowed

ITA 401/CHNY/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.401/Chny/2022 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Mr. Penupatruni Chinna Rao Ito बनाम 8, Pughs Road, Sundaram Salai, International Taxation, / Vs. R.A. Puram, Chennai-600 028. Ward-1(1), Chennai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aecpc-1481-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Ms. N.V. Lakshmi (Advocate) - Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal (Jcit)- Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Final Hearing : 04-03-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25-04-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Ms. N.V. Lakshmi (Advocate) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal (JCIT)- Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 2(47)(v)Section 50C(1)Section 54Section 54B

filed additional grounds of appeal which read as under: - The assessing officer erred in making disallowance of part of indexed cost of acquisition in a limited scrutiny to verify the large deduction claimed u/s 54B, 54C, 54D, 54G, 54GA of the Act without converting the assessment into a complete scrutiny ... thus observed that the assessee has taken the entire cost, applied indexation from 1981-82 and claimed the same as indexed cost of acquisition against the sale consideration. Since the extent of property conveyed was 4274 square feets only and the balance being retained by the assessee himself, only

Millie Dey, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 25(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 52/KOL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 52/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-2017 Millie Dey,…………………….........................Appellant Flat-3F, Abira Kaninika, 529, Hemanta Mukhopadhyay Sarani, Kolkata-700029 [Pan:Atjpd8932E] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……..........................Respondent (National Faceless Appeal Centre), Delhi [Income Tax Officer, Jurisdiction:Ward-25(1), Kolkata] Appearances By: Shri Anirban Gangopadhyay, C.A., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : 10Th April, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: April 23, 2024 O R D E R

Section 147

that the cost of property has been computed by Registered Valuer on the reverse method of indexation and practically the sale consideration and indexed cost of acquisition are the same. The ld. Assessing Officer was not satisfied with this calculation and in absence of Circle rate of the said ... Assessment Year: 2016-2017 Millie Dey property as on 01.04.1981, he estimated the indexed cost of acquisition at Rs.5,00,370/- and made an addition for long-term capital gain at Rs.44,99,630/- and the income assessed at Rs.48,45,690/-. 4. Aggrieved, assessee preferred in appeal before

Mahinder Chawla, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle Int. Tax- 1(2)(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 473/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Apr 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2020-21 Mahinder Chawla, Vs Acit, H-80, South Extension, Circle Int. Taxation 1(2)(1), New Delhi – 110 049. New Delhi. Pan: Acdpc9480B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 25.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : .04.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: This Appeal Is Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 31.01.2023 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi-42, (Hereinafter Referred As Ld. First Appellate Authority Or In Short Ld. ‘Faa’) In Appeal No.Cit(A), Delhi-42/10596/2019-20 Arising Out Of The Appeal Before It Against The Order Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As ‘The Act’), By The Acit, Circle Int. Taxation 1(2)(1), New Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao). 2. Heard & Perused The Records.

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 55

that the only effective issue in the present appeal is against the action of Ld. Tax authorities below in not accepting the indexed cost of acquisition calculated for the purpose of capital gain allegedly on the ground that assessee has not submitted the proof of ownership of the property sold ... that the assessing officer had made the addition primarily for the reason that he concluded lack of evidence being filed to establish the indexed cost of acquisition. Before the CIT(A) the appellant was able to establish that certain evidences were filed before the assessing officer however

D.Ramgopal, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(1), Coimbatore

The appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 581/CHNY/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Apr 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.581/Chny/2022 (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Shri D. Ramagopal Acit बनाम C/O.Mr. G.V. Jhabakh (Fca) Central Circle-1 157, P.M Swamy Colony, Coimbatore. / Vs. 5Th Street, Coimbatore. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Akgpr-3621-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Jhabakh(Ca)- Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som (Cit)-Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Final Hearing : 18-03-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09-04-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Jhabakh(CA)- Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT)-Ld. DR
Section 131Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271F

transferred on 31.07.2010) Rs. 8,04,000/- Cost of acquisition Vide sale deed dated 26.06.1996 (57.5% of Rs.2,80,000 Rs.1,61,000 Indexed cost of acquisition (161000*711/305) Rs. 3,75,315 Long Term Capital Gain Rs. 4,28,785/- ii) Sale of land of 50 cents

Sunil Kapoor, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle Intl. Taxation 2(1)(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 3314/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Apr 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2021-22 Shri Sunil Kapoor, Vs. Acit K-77, Lajpat Nagar-Ii, Circle Intt. New Delhi-110 024 Taxation 2(1)(2) Pan Aoips5698J New Delhi. (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Tyagi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

Sale Consideration 15,00,00,000.00 Less: Expenses on transfer-Commission on sales 45,00,000.00 Net consideration 14,55,00,000.00 Less: Index cost of acquisition Cost of acquisition f/y 2009-10 85,47,364.00 1,73,83,490.30 Cost of Improvement ... accruing as a result of the transfer of the capital asset the expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively in connection with such transfer; the indexed cost of acquisition and the indexed cost of any improvement thereto. During the year, the assessee sold a property vide sale deed dated

ITO, International Taxation Ward1(2), Chennai vs. Rajamanickam Arulselvan, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue and the Cross

ITA 479/CHNY/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Apr 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G & Shri Manomohan Dasआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.479/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 & C.O. No. 44/Chny/2023 [In I.T.A. No. 479/Chny/2023] The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Shri Rajamanickam Arulselvan, 65, Defence Officer Colony, 2Nd International Taxation Ward 1(2), Bsnl Building Tower-1, 4Th Floor, Avenue, 6Th Cross Street, Guindy, Greams Road, Thousand Light, Guindy Industrial Estate S.O., Chennai 600 006. Chennai 600 032. [Pan:Aappa2346C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent/Cross Objector) Department By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit Assessee By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 03.01.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 01.04.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per Manjunatha, G.: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-16, Chennai, Dated 22.02.2023 Passed In Ita No. 10039/Cit(A)-16/2012-2013 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2013-14. The Revenue Has Raised Following Grounds: 1. That The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Is Erroneous On The Facts, The Merits Of The Case & Provisions Of Law As Well & Hence Unsustainable. 2. That The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Failing To Appreciate That When The Assessee Had Applied For Conversion Of The Vacant Land Into A Plotted

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 139Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 2(14)Section 45(3)

amount as recorded in the books of the partnership firm amounting to ₹.6,99,79,150/- as full value of consideration after considering indexed cost of acquisition and assessed the long term capital gains at ₹.6,77,17,117/- and added back to total income. 4. Being aggrieved

Goldgreen Land Holdings LLP( Formerly Gold Green Holdings Private Limited), Shankarpally Mandal, Mirzaguda vs. Income Tax Officer - Ward 2(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 473/HYD/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Mar 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं / Ita No. 473/Hyd/2023 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Goldgreen Land Holdings Llp Vs. Income Tax Officer, (Formerly Gold Green Holdings Ward-2(1), Private Limited), Hyderabad Shankarpally Mandal, Mirzaguda [Pan No. Aadcg2864N] अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent धििााररती द्वारा / Assessee By: Shri Kumar Pal Tated, Ar राजस्‍व द्वारा / Revenue By: Shri Shakeer Ahamed, Dr सुिवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 06/03/2024 घोर्णा की तारीख/Pronouncement On: 22/03/2024 आदेश / Order Per K. Narasimha Chary, J.M: Aggrieved By The Order Dated 07/08/2023 Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)”), In The Case Of Goldgreen Land Holdings Private Limited (“The Assessee”) For The Assessment Year 2017-18, Assessee Preferred This Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri Kumar Pal Tated, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shakeer Ahamed, DR
Section 143(3)Section 2(14)Section 48Section 50C

such land shall be calculated from 2009 in terms of section 48 of the Act. Further grievance of the assessee is that indexed cost of acquisition is not granted to the assessee and the Revenue authorities failed to adhere to the provisions of section ... GAIN ONLY AND NOT SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN and this legal issue may kindly be taken note of and accordingly, the issue of INDEXED COST OF ACQUISITION may be considered. Ground No.7 For the above grounds which are mutually exclusive and any other ground that may be raised

Deependra Singh, Mumbai vs. ITO 17(2)(1) Mumbai, Bandra East

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

ITA 2690/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaledeependra Singh, Vs. Ito Ward-17(2)(1), 504 Pushpa Kunj, Kautaliya Bhavan, A Road,Marine Lines, Bandra East, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400050. Pan/Gir No. : Akips3319N Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri H.N.Motiwalla.ARFor Respondent: Shri P.D.Chougle. Sr.DR
Section 142(1)Section 50CSection 50C(2)

value of Rs.2,25,13,000/- as on 25.08.2006. Further on the second disputed issue, the Ld.AR Deependra Singh, Mumbai. contentions are that index cost of acquisition has to allowed to the date of execution of conveyance deed in F.Y.2010-11 and not restricting to the date of agreement ... assessment proceedings u/sec143(3) of the Act and there are no valid reasons to deny or restrict the index cost of acquisition to the date of agreement i.e.25-08-2006 i.e F.Y.2006-07 in Deependra Singh, Mumbai. the impugned proceedings. Accordingly, set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restore the disputed

Dr. Sanjay R Magavi, Haveri vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Haveri

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

ITA 53/BANG/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K, Vice- & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Ms.Lakshmi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.V.Parithivel, JCIT-DR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 54F

Channabasappa Magavi Memorial Multispeciality Hospital, Station Road, Haveri. The benefit of section 54F has been denied to the assessee and the deduction allowing indexed cost of acquisition to the assessee resultantly the rest of the amount of Rs.1,10,26,386 has been determined as long term capital gain

Pulparambil Rajendran by Legal Heir P.R Anuradha, Calicut vs. ACIT Circle -1(1) &Tps, Kozhikode

In the result, the assessee’sappeal is dismissed

ITA 936/COCH/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 Mar 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Dr. Seethalakshmi

For Appellant: None (written submissions)For Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 2

acquired prior to that date. It is this value which is further subject to indexation, on account of inflation, to arrive at the indexed cost of acquisition, which ITA No. 936/Coch/2022 (AY : 2014-15) Pulparambil Rajendran v. Asst. CIT, Circle -1(1) & TPS is to be, in terms ... series of orders by the Tribunal, confirming the validity of the adopted method, i.e., the reverse indexation method, for computing the indexed cost of acquisition, further relying on the decision qua judicial precedence, principally being Uol v. Kamlashi Finance Corporation Ltd., 1992 KHC 622 [1992 Supp (1) SCC648/443], wherein

Sushila Bhardwaj, Jaipur vs. ITO 1(4), Jaipur

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

ITA 604/JPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Hearing.”

For Appellant: Sh. Mukesh Khandelwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Anoop Singh (Addl. CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 54

deducted for calculating taxable capital gain which has further been defined in clause (iii) of Explanation. As per this definition indexed cost of acquisition is an amount which bears to the cost of acquisition the same proportion as Cost Inflation Index for the year in which the asset is transferred ... Meaning thereby that cost actually incurred in the first year of acquisition of capital asset has to be determined first for working out indexed cost of acquisition and it is not permissible that you straightway jump to estimate cost in today’s terms. 2. The estimation about cost of construction