← 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

M/S Siddhula;L, Bhopal vs. The ITO 2(2) Bhopal, Bhopal

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 110/IND/2023[2011-12d]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Feb 2024

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Siddhulal Patidar, Income-Tax Officer, 01,Gram Sallaiya, 2(2), बनाम/ Bawadia Kalan, Bhopal Vs. Bhopal (Appellant/Assessee) (Respondent/Revenue) Pan: Dhypp1740N Assessee By Shri Ashish Goyal & Shri N.D. Patwa, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 13.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 28.02.2024

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 50C(1)Section 50C(2)Section 54B

account of long- term capital gain, calculated as under: Full value of consideration 48,05,000 Less: Indexed cost of acquisition 1,91,773 Long-term capital gain 46,13,227 Aggrieved, the assessee went in first-appeal but did succeed. Now, the assessee has come in next appeal before

Keshav Kanungo, Bhopal vs. ACIT2(1) Bhopal, Bhopal

Appeal is allowed in terms mentioned above

ITA 263/IND/2023[AY 2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore26 Feb 2024

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2015-16 Keshav Kanungo, Acit, Flat No. A-603, Circle-2(1), Virasha Heights, Bhopal बनाम/ Near Danish Bridge, Vs. Bhopal (Appellant/Assessee) (Respondent/Revenue) Pan: Abvpk 2942 F Assessee By Ms. Nisha Lahoti, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing 12.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 26.02.2024

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 4Section 54Section 54BSection 54ESection 54F

original asset. The appellant has submitted that his share in the sale proceeds was Rs. 1,41,57,000/- and after reducing the indexed cost of acquisition, the long term capital gain comes to Rs. 1,38,47,286/-. The appellant claimed that he had invested Rs. 50 lakhs

Somnath Saha, Kolkata vs. ITO Ward-38(4), Paschim Medinipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed on legal issue

ITA 2339/KOL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

Section 127(1)Section 127(2)Section 147Section 148

immovable property on 16.11.2011 for a consideration of Rs. 1,37,00,000/- which was brought on 30.04.2008 for Rs.29,30,000/-. The indexed cost of acquisition of the said property worked out at Rs.39,51,976/- resulting into a long term capital gain of Rs. 97,48,025/- however

ACIT, CC - I (2), Chennai vs. M/S. Balaji Hotels & Enterprises Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 209/CHNY/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Feb 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri V. Nandakumar, CITFor Respondent: Shri D. Anand, Advocate
Section 139Section 139(5)Section 143(3)

revised computation of income during the course of assessment proceedings, filed documents in proof of sale value adopted in it, the value of indexed cost of acquisition of the asset including interest cost and other indirect costs and therefore, the long term capital loss by way of this revised computation ... originally returned by the assessee, the revised computation of income provided by assessee, filed documents and proof of sale value adopted, value of indexed cost of acquisition of assets including interest cost and other indirect costs which were verified by the AO. This fact is noted by himself

ACIT, CC - I (2), Chennai vs. M/S. Balaji Hotels & Enterprises Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 208/CHNY/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Feb 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri V. Nandakumar, CITFor Respondent: Shri D. Anand, Advocate
Section 139Section 139(5)Section 143(3)

revised computation of income during the course of assessment proceedings, filed documents in proof of sale value adopted in it, the value of indexed cost of acquisition of the asset including interest cost and other indirect costs and therefore, the long term capital loss by way of this revised computation ... originally returned by the assessee, the revised computation of income provided by assessee, filed documents and proof of sale value adopted, value of indexed cost of acquisition of assets including interest cost and other indirect costs which were verified by the AO. This fact is noted by himself

ACIT, CC - I (2), Chennai vs. M/S. Balaji Hotels & Enterprises Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 207/CHNY/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Feb 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri V. Nandakumar, CITFor Respondent: Shri D. Anand, Advocate
Section 139Section 139(5)Section 143(3)

revised computation of income during the course of assessment proceedings, filed documents in proof of sale value adopted in it, the value of indexed cost of acquisition of the asset including interest cost and other indirect costs and therefore, the long term capital loss by way of this revised computation ... originally returned by the assessee, the revised computation of income provided by assessee, filed documents and proof of sale value adopted, value of indexed cost of acquisition of assets including interest cost and other indirect costs which were verified by the AO. This fact is noted by himself

Ramkunwar Patidar, Bhopal vs. The ITO 2 (4), Bhopal

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 208/IND/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 Feb 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year : 2009-10 Shri Ramkunwar Patidar, Income-Tax Officer, Village Salliya, 2(4), बनाम/ Post Bawadia Kalan, Bhopal Vs. Bhopal (Appellant/Assessee) (Respondent/Revenue) Pan: Blxpp4909C Assessee By Shri S.S.Solanki, Ca & Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 22.02.2024

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 54F

assessee by AO Assessee’s 1/3rd share in Sale Consideration of Rs. 32,00,000 34,66,666 1,04,00,000/- Less: Indexed cost of acquisition 2,34,205 2,34,205 Less: Exemption u/s 54 on account of investment in new 30,13,893 Nil house Taxable capital ... taken the same at Rs. 34,66,666/-. (ii) The assessee took indexed cost of acquisition at Rs. 2,34,205/- but during re-assessment proceeding, the assessee furnished a revised cost at Rs. 5,19,738/- and requested the AO to allow the same. However, the AO turned down

Shree Cement Limited, Beawar vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 500/JPR/2023[215-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Feb 2024

Bench: or at the time of hearing of this appeal.

For Appellant: Sh. Dilip B Desai(C.A.)For Respondent: Sh. Alka Gautam (CIT) (V.H) &
Section 115JSection 143Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144B(1)(xvi)Section 80Section 80I

considering the said provision, it has been held that since there is no provision in the Act to prevent the assessee from claiming indexed cost of acquisition on the sale of asset, assessee has to be given the benefit of indexed cost of acquisition. The court has categorically held that ... considering the indexed cost of acquisition is subjected to tax under a specific provision of Section 112 of the Act. As regards taxation of capital ACIT vs. Shree Cement Ltd. gains, the provisions of Sec 115JB of the Act are general provisions vis-à-vis the specific provisions of Section

Shree Cement Limited, Beawar vs. National Faceless Assessment Assessment Centre, Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Ajmer

ITA 497/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Feb 2024AY 2017-18
Section 115JSection 143Section 143(3)Section 144B(1)(xvi)Section 80Section 80I

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM

Shree Cement Limited, Beawar vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Deputy Commissionerof Income Tax, Circle -2, Ajmer

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 496/JPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: or at the time of hearing of this appeal.

For Appellant: Sh. Dilip B Desai(C.A.)For Respondent: Sh. Alka Gautam (CIT) (V.H) &
Section 115JSection 143Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144B(1)(xvi)Section 80Section 80I

considering the said provision, it has been held that since there is no provision in the Act to prevent the assessee from claiming indexed cost of acquisition on the sale of asset, assessee has to be given the benefit of indexed cost of acquisition. The court has categorically held that ... considering the indexed cost of acquisition is subjected to tax under a specific provision of Section 112 of the Act. As regards taxation of capital ACIT vs. Shree Cement Ltd. gains, the provisions of Sec 115JB of the Act are general provisions vis-à-vis the specific provisions of Section

Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax, Ajmer vs. Shree Cement Ltd, Beawar

ITA 490/JPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Feb 2024AY 2016-17
Section 115JSection 143Section 143(3)Section 144B(1)(xvi)Section 80Section 80I

ITA Nos. 489 to 492/JP/2023 ACIT vs. Shree Cement Ltd. 2 These are eight cross appeals filed by the revenue

Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax, Ajmer vs. Shree Cement Ltd, Beawar

ITA 489/JPR/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Feb 2024AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Sh. Dilip B Desai(C.A.)For Respondent: Sh. Alka Gautam (CIT) (V.H) &
Section 115JSection 143Section 143(3)Section 144B(1)(xvi)Section 80Section 80I

ITA Nos. 489 to 492/JP/2023 ACIT vs. Shree Cement Ltd. 1 आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, जयपुर न्यायपीठ, जयपुर IN THE INCOME

Mohan Lal Jain, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-63(1), New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 746/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 54

Gain of Rs. 35,58,612/- was computed as under:- “Sale consideration Received Rs. 1,36,00,000/- Less Transfer Expenses NIL Less: indexed Cost of acquisition and improvement F.Y 2005-06 2750000/497*1125 Rs. 62,24,849/- F.Y 2005-06 433466/519

Rajesh Saluja, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle-70(1), New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 5190/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 24

case and aforesaid judgment it is held that AO is correct in making the disallowance of Rs.1,16,43,521/-being indexed cost of acquisition of property of Rs.94.17,082/ on account of interest paid on borrowed capital In view of the above, appeal is dismissed. 6. in the result ... error or infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 1,16,43,521/- being indexation cost of acquisition of property of Rs. 94,17,082/- on account of interest paid on borrowed capital. Thus, we find no merits in the Grounds

Jai Kishan, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward -39(3), New Delhi

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

ITA 947/DEL/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Feb 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2011-12] Jai Kishan, Vs Ito, 737, Village Pooth Khurd, Ward-39(3), New Delhi-110039. New Delhi. Pan-Aiepd4881E Appellant Respondent Appellant By Ms. Aakriti Dhawan, Adv. Respondent By Shri Sandeep Kr. Mishra, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 07.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 14.02.2024

Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 54B

account of Long Term Capital Gain (“LTCG”) by taking sale consideration at INR 2,16,67,726/- as on 12.05.2010 and indexed cost of acquisition with reference to year 1980- 81 at INR 1,64,290/-. The grievance of the assessee is that the AO committed patent error in working ... sale consideration and indexed cost of acquisition without obtaining report from DVO and rejecting the valuation report furnished by the assessee. It is also seen that the assessee had made request for admitting the claim u/s 54B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”). But the lower authorities

The ITO 4 (3), Indore vs. Smt Ranjana Gupta, Indore

ITA 4/IND/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore13 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2015-16 Income-Tax Officer, Smt. Ranjana Gupta, 4(3), 204, Sant Marg, बनाम/ Indore. Gandhi Nagar, Vs. Indore. (Revenue / Appellant) (Assessee / Respondent) Pan: Bcjpg 9105 N Assessee By Shri Yash Kukreja & Hitesh Chimnani, Cas Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 23.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 13.02.2024

Section 143(3)Section 50CSection 54B

situated at Village – Bada Bangarda, Tehsil – Hatod, District – Indore. The AO further observed that while computing taxable gain, the assessee claimed deduction of indexed cost of acquisition, transfer expenses and exemption u/s 54B/54F from full value of consideration and declared net capital gain of Rs. Nil. The AO increased taxable ... terms of section 50C. This resulted in an addition of Rs. 93,25,000/-. (ii) The assessee claimed indexed cost of acquisition at Rs. 28,65,777/- which the AO reduced to Rs. 23,84,241/-. This resulted in an addition of Rs. 4,81,536/-. (iii) The assessee claimed

Smt. Nirmala Venkatapathy, Madurai vs. ITO, Ward - II (1), Madurai

Accordingly, all the grounds taken by the appellant are dismissed

ITA 2492/CHNY/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Feb 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2492/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Late Smt. Nirmala The Income Tax Officer, Venkatapathy, Vs. Ward Ii(1), Rep. By Legal Heir, Smt. Uma Madurai. Venkatachalam No.12, Jawahar Road, Chockkikulam, Madurai – 625 002. Pan: Agcpn 9068P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri N.Arjun Raj, Ca (Amicus Curie) ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06.02.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09.02.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Madurai In Ita No.010/2013-14 Dated 08.08.2019. The Assessment Was Framed By The Income Tax Officer, Ward-Ii(1), Madurai For The Assessment Year 2010-11 U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’) Vide Order Dated 14.03.2013. 2. The First Issue On Merits Is As Regards To Assessment Of Capital Gains.

For Appellant: Shri N.Arjun Raj, CA (Amicus Curie)For Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT
Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

gains at Rs.40,32,664/- as under:- 1. Sale consideration on 03.10.2009 Rs.41,94,664 2. Value as on 1.4.1981 Rs.27,000/- 3. Indexed cost of Acquisition 27,000 x Rs.1,62,000 600 /100 4. Capital gain 41,94,664 – 1,62,000 Rs.40,32,664 Aggrieved, assessee preferred ... Increase in value for 29 years i.e., from 21,08,688/- 1.4.1981 6. Value as on 1.4.1981 21,58,689/- 7. Indexed cost of Acquisition 1,29,52,132/- 2158688*600/100 8. Capital Loss 1,299,52,132 – 41,94,664 87,57,468/- He pointed out that only disputed

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Jaipur vs. Smt. Maya Khandelwal, Jaipur

ITA 533/JPR/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 50C(1)Section 54E

immovable property for Rs. 67,11,000/- during the year under consideration. The claim of capital gain was offered after clamming the indexed cost of acquisition, transfer expenses and exemption u/s. 54EC and 54F of the Act. 3.1 From the copy of the sale document of the property

Mukta Ganpat Karnale, Mumbai vs. DCIT 22 (1), Mumbai

ITA 2812/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am Ι.Τ.Α. No. 2812/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) Mukta Ganpat Karnale A-701, Deepjyot Chs Ltd., Opp. Orbit Tower, S.L. Matkar Marg, Elphiston Road, Mumbai- 400025 Pan: Ajlpk3849B Appellant) Appellant/Assessee By Revenue/Respondent By Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-22(1), Vs. Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai-400012 Respondent) Mr. Mahendra Pasthe, Ca Shri Mahita Nair, Sr. Dr 25.01.2024 02.02.2024 Order Per Padmavathy S, Am: This Appeal Is Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax, Appeals, / National Faceless Appeal Centre [In Short 'The Cit(A)'] Dated 20.06.2023 For

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144BSection 270Section 46ASection 48

Disallowed Deduction U/s 48 of the Income Tax Act. 2. The learned officer has erred in making addition of Indexed Cost of acquisition of House Property sold in total income of the assesse. 3. The learned officer has erred in not giving sufficient time to prove the genuneness of transactions ... respond to the notices issued and therefore the AO concluded the assessment by denying the deduction claimed by the assessee as index cost of acquisition under section 48 to the tune of Rs. 31,29,204/-. The reason for the AO to deny the deduction under section 48 is that

Icici Bank Ltd., Mumbai vs. The Dy CIT -2(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 738/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Icici Bank Ltd. The Dy. Commissioner Of Icici Bank Towers, Income-Tax 2(3)(1) Bandra Kurla Complex, Aaykar Bhavan, Vs. 5Th Floor, Room No.552, Badra (East), Mumbai-400 051 M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaci1195H

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti Visanji, advFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 263Section 36(1)Section 48

Therefore, pursuant to section 48 read with Rule 115 the ICICI Bank Ltd; A.Y. 2015-16 resultant capital gain/loss is computed by reducing indexed cost of acquisition of shares (in foreign currency) from sales proceeds (in foreign currency) received and the resultant gain/loss is converted to INR by applying provisions ... were also received in foreign currency. Therefore, pursuant to section 48 read with Rule 115 the resultant capital gain/loss is computed by reducing indexed cost of acquisition of shares (in foreign currency) from sales proceeds (in foreign currency) received and the resultant gain/loss would be converted to INR by applying