“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

Mr. Anthony P Lewis, Mumbai vs. ITO-22(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 1813/MUM/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jul 2023AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti Sathe &For Respondent: Smt Sailja Rai

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 54

therefore liable to be set aside. (G) The Learned C.I.T.(A), erred in confirming the order of the AO in calculating the Indexed Cost of acquisition on cost of Rs. 12,00,000/- whereas the figure appearing in the Balance sheet is of Rs. 21.05,400/. Therefore, the Indexation should

ITO, Ward-3(3)(1), Surat vs. Shri Arvindbhai Ratanbhai Mokani, Surat

In the result, this appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 139/SRT/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Physical Hearing) I.T.O., Arvindbhai Ratanbhai Mokani, Ward-3(3)(1), D-260-261, Vittal Nagar Society, Vs. Surat. Varachha Road, Hira Baug, Surat-395006. Pan No. Ahfpm 2302 K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 144Section 254(1)

25/04/2005. The assessee could not furnish such details due to his ill health and hospitalization. The assessee contended that he has eligible for indexed cost of acquisition, the Assessing Officer failed to give deduction of indexed cost of Rs. 7,47,196/-. 6. On the addition

Finquest Financial Solutions Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC-3(4), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for AY

ITA 734/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Ms. Padmavathy S, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.733/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2018-19) आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.734/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Finquest Financial Solutions बिधम/ Deputy Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax, Cc-3(4), Vs. 602, 6Th Floor, Boston Room No.1915, 19Th House, Suren Road, Floor, Air India Building, Andheri (E), Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 093 Mumbai-400 021 स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacf8117G (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri V. G. Ginde & Kumar Kale Revenue By: Shri Ankush Kapoor, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 07/06/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/06/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax Appeals-51, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Ld. Cit(A)”] Dated 16.01.2023, For Ay. 2018-19 & Ay. 2017-18 Respectively. 2. As Per The Request Of The Ld. Authorized Representative (Ar) Of The Assessee, First Of All, We Will Adjudicate The Appeal For Ay. 2018-19 First. 3. At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Does Not Press Ground No. 1 Which Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Confirming The Addition Of Rs.19,25,000/- Made By The Assessing Officer (Ao), Being Disallowance Of Fees Paid To The Roc. Therefore, This Ground Of Appeal Of Assessee Stands Dismissed. (Ay. 2018-19 & Ay. 2017-18) Finquest Financial Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

For Appellant: Shri V. G. Ginde & Kumar KaleFor Respondent: Shri Ankush Kapoor, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69B

against the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the rejection of the assessee’s claim for deduction of enhanced indexed cost of acquisition of Rs.2,62,80,527/- instead of Rs.1,61,10,333/- in computing Long Term Capital Gain/Long Term Capital Loss (“LTCG/LTCL”) on cancellation ... Purchase Agreement’ of eight (8) flats at “Sriniwas Residency” and while computing the LTCG in the return of income, the appellant had claimed indexed cost of acquisition based on the investment recorded originally in the books of account i.e. Rs.7,10,75,000. However, in the light of subsequent development

Finquest Financial Solutions Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC-3(4), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for AY

ITA 733/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri V. G. Ginde & Kumar KaleFor Respondent: Shri Ankush Kapoor, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69B

Mohammed Siraj, Jhunjhunu vs. ITO, Ward-1, Jhunjhunu

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

ITA 109/JPR/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Poonia, CA &For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 234BSection 50CSection 54B

late by six months. The assessee sold six plots for sale consideration of Rs.17,20,000/- during previous year. After claiming indexation cost of acquisition of Rs.62,800/-, indexation cost of construction of Rs.3,11,500/-, deduction u/s 54B of Rs.13,45,700/- declared LTCG ... that during the relevant previous year the appellant sold 6 plots for total sale consideration of Rs.17.20,000/- and after claiming indexed cost of acquisition of Rs.62,800 indexed cost of construction of Rs.3,11,500/- and deduction u/s. 54B of the 1. T. Act of Rs.13,45,700/- declared

M/S. Shri Siddeshwar Organic Foods Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 110/JPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Sh. Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. A. S. Nehara (Addl. CIT)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

while calculating LTCG 3 M/s Shri Siddeshwar Organic Foods Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT the company took the benefits of indexation and deducted index cost of acquisition. The AR was asked to submit the details regarding cost of acquisition claimed. The AR submitted vide his letter dated 04.10.2016 that loan ... that the Assessee company sold the property owned by it for a total consideration of Rs 7,65,00,000/- and after reducing Indexed cost of acquisition of Rs 2,20,31,767/-, long term capital gain of Rs 5,44,68,233.00 was offered for tax in the return

Shri Bhawani Shankar Parashar, Indore vs. The DCIT/ACIT 1 (2), Indore

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 411/IND/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishri Bhawani Shankar Pr. Cit-1 Prashar Indore 28, Lasudia Mori, Vijay Vs. Nagar, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Bgbpp 2475 G Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal, Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 02.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 21.06.2023

Section 263

property as on 01- 04-1981 to be Rs. 3,39,339/- as per the report of the DVO thereby resulting in indexed cost of acquisition to be Rs. 26,63,811/- and taxable long-term capital gain to be Rs. 8,49,77,273/- as against the amount ... calculating on this method will be Rs. 1,00,13,598/- Page 12 of 21 Bhawani Shankar Page 13 of 21 Indexed cost of acquisition of the said asset would be Rs.1,00,13,598 785/100 =Rs.7,86,06,7441-1- Hence, long term capital gain derived by the assessee

Shri Gurkha Singh Alias Joginder Singh, Bathinda vs. Income Tax Offier Ward 1(1), Bathinda

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 145/ASR/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar20 Jun 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.145/Asr/2018 Assessment Year: 2009-10

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250(6)Section 54BSection 64Section 69A

That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in not considering the indexed cost of acquisition of agricultural land in 2003-04 for Rs. 187300/- and its indexed cost for deduction at Rs. 235440/-. 7. That on the facts

Smt. Manju Gupta, Kota vs. ITO, Ward-1, Bharatpur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 143/JPR/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Or During The Course Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Agarwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt Monisha Chaudhary (Addl. CIT) a

Section 147Section 54F

Dilshad Ext., Ghaziabad, UP to Sh. Amritanshu Tiwari Rajnagar, Ghaziabad, UP, for a sale consideration of Rs. 36,00,000/-. The indexed cost of acquisition of the aforesaid immovable property comes to Rs. 33,12,327/-. Therefore, a capital gain of Rs. 2,87,673/- arising on sale of land ... Dilshad Ext., Ghaziabad, UP to Sh. Amritanshu Tiwari Rajnagar, Ghaziabad, UP, for a sale consideration of Rs. 36,00,000/- .The indexed cost of acquisition of the aforesaid immovable property comes to Rs. 33,12,327/-. Therefore, a capital gain of Rs. 2,87,673/- is arisen on sale

Swadeshi Polytex Ltd, Ghaziabad vs. ITO, Ward-22(4), New Delhi

ITA 5592/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Anubhav Sharmam/S. Swadeshi Polytex Limited Vs. Ito, A-1, Sector-17, Ward-22(4), Kavi Nagar, Industrial Area, New Delhi Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh-201002 Pan: Aalcs4058E (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 271Section 50C

sold as per valuation report (16976.5*10000) Deemed Sales Consideration 16,97,65,000/- 16,97,65,000/- (section 50C) Less : Indexed cost of Acquisition, 1,20,70,292 (1,20,70,292) (16976.5*711)/100)*100 Total 15,76,94,708/- 3. Ld. AO was not satisfied with ... sold as per valuation report (16976.5*10000) Deemed Sales Consideration 16,97,65,000/- 16,97,65,000/- Less : Indexed cost of Acquisition, 45,86,710/- (45,86,710) (16976.5*711)/100)*38 Total 16,51,78,290/- ITA 5592.Del.2018 4 Swadeshi Polytex Ltd. Therefore, an addition

Prakashsinh Thakor, Surat vs. ACIT, Circle-2(2), Surat

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 39/SRT/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat08 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Physical Court) Prakashsinh Thakor, A.C.I.T., 53, Pratap Nagar, Delad, Olpad, Circle2(2), Vs. Surat-394540 Surat. Pan: Alhpt 9125 B Appellant Respondednt

Section 139(1)Section 148Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)

filed return of income, return of income was filed only in response to notice under Section 148 of the Act. The indexed cost of acquisition provided by assessee of Rs. 7,53,750/- was @ Rs. 50/- per square meter as on 01.03.1981. The DVO assessed

Smita Yogesh Parekh, Mumbai vs. ITO 34(3)(2), Mumbai

ITA 654/MUM/2023[9820254442]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 May 2023

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2008-09 Smita Yogesh Parekh, Ito, 405 B Wingh, Kamal Kunj, Ward-34(3)(2), Subhash Road, Villege Parle Vs. Mumbai (East), Mumbai, Maharashtra, 400057 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaqpp3494H

For Appellant: Shri A. N. ShahFor Respondent: Shri Jogendra Singh, Sr. AR

Section 143(3)Section 23(3)Section 250Section 25OSection 50C

gain on sale of Vasai flat at Rs. 23,345/- as against loss of Rs. 77,978/- suffered by your appellant after considering indexed cost of acquisition." 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT (A) erred in stating in decision

Naresh Jaramdas Idnani, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer (It)2 (2) (1), Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5830/MUM/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 May 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhvk-Vk-La- 5830@Eaqcbz@2019 ¼Fu-Oa- 2016&17½ Naresh Jaramdas Idnani 101, Ashirwad Raheja Complex, Andheri Mumbai-400 061 ..... Vihykfkhz/Appellant Pan No. Afdpi0010E Cuke Vs. Income Tax Officer (It)-2 (2) (1) Room No.1725, 17Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, ..... Izfroknh/Respondent Mumbai-400 021

For Appellant: Shri Sameer Dalal izfroknh }kjk@For Respondent: Ms. Vranda U. Matkari, Sr. AR

flat. The Assessing Officer (AO) while computing long term capital gain, reduced indexed cost of compensation received in the year 2000 from the indexed cost of acquisition of old Flat and made addition of Rs.27,02,385/-. The Ld. Authorised Representative (AR) pointed that the AO and CIT(A) have ... conclusion that the amount received by the assessee by way of compensation in the year 2000 has to be reduced from indexed cost of acquisition of old flat. The assessee had received Rs.10,79,000/- in the year 2000 from the developer. The said amount was received as compensation

Shri Ravjibhai Becharbhai Dhameliya, Surat vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, -1, Surat

ITA 112/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat15 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.110/Srt/2022 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Court Hearing) Bhikhabhai Rajabhai Dhameliya Principal Commissioner Of 13, Krishnanagar Society, Income Tax-1, Surat, Aaykar Vs. Varachha Road, Surat-395006 Bhavan, Majuira Gate, Surat- 395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aappd 7018 L (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sapnesh R Sheth, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ashok B. Koli, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54B

consideration of Rs.7.15 crores and the assessee’s share being Rs.2,19,50,050/- to a firm Build Tech Enterprise. After deduction of indexed cost of acquisition of Rs.20,40,984/-, the assessee has earned long term capital gain of Rs.1,99,09,516/-. The said amount of Rs.1

Dakshaben Shailesh Dhameliya, Surat vs. The PCIT-1, Surat

ITA 111/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat15 May 2023AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Sapnesh R Sheth, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ashok B. Koli, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54B

Bhikhabhai Rajabhai Dhamaniya, Surat vs. The PCIT, Surat-1, Surat

ITA 110/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat15 May 2023AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Sapnesh R Sheth, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ashok B. Koli, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54B

Subramanian Swaminathan, New Delhi vs. ACIT (International Taxation), Circle-3(1)(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7904/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. Sankalp Malik, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 271(1)(c)Section 54BSection 54F

During scrutiny proceedings, the said claim of deduction under section 54F, had been examined in detail and duly allowed. However, only the indexed cost of acquisition of Rs. 10,25,801/- & the expense of Rs. 2,83,473/- was disallowed. 6. For the sake of ready reference, the findings

Harivadanbhai Maganlal Patel, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(3)(7), Surat

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

ITA 30/SRT/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat08 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), DR. A. L. SAINI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sapnesh R Sheth, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr- DR

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 50C

Rs.38,75,600/-, which is acceptable to the assessee, however, the grievance of the assessee is that the DVO has taken indexed cost of acquisition at Rs. 31/- per square meter, as on 01.04.1981, which is very lower side. As per registered valuer of the assessee, the indexed cost ... determine the value of the land as on 01.04.1981 at 80/- per square meter, and the same should be considered to compute the indexed cost of acquisition. 11. In case of second property situated at R.S. No.7/1, Block No.9/ Vihel, Choryasi, Surat, the ld Counsel pointed out that the sale

Farooq Abdulla Merchant, Mumbai vs. ITO 23 (1)(4), Mumbai

In the result, Ground No. V raised by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 7906/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon'Blefarooq Abdulla Merchant V. Income Tax Officer- Ward – 23(1)(4) Matru Mandir, Tardev Road A-1401, Poseidon Tower Mumbai – 400 007 Versova, Yari Road Above Indian Bank, Versova Andheri (W), Mumbai - 400061 Pan: Ahupm7426K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Vimal Punamiya Department Represented By : Smt. Vranda U. Matkarni

Section 143(2)Section 54Section 54(1)

Proceeds 130,000,000 Less: Commission 2,101,981 Share of Brother 30,000,000 Legal Fees 2,100,000 95,798,019 Indexed Cost of Acquisition Less: (61,95,000*939/ 100) -58,171,050 37,626,969 Less: Exemption u/s 54 23,440,800 Renovation Expenditure

Vivek Agnihotri, Mumbai vs. ITO 16 (1)(5), Mumbai

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

ITA 4493/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shir Pavan Kumar Gadalevivek Agnihotri Vs. Ito – 16(1)(5), 1505/1506, Amarnath Aayakar Bhavan, Tower, Yari Road, M.K.Road, Versova, Andheri (W) Mumbai – 400020. Mumbai – 400061. Pan/Gir No. : Adypa6052B Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Ms.Kinjal Bhuta.Ar Respondent By : Mr. Ankush Kapoor.Dr Date Of Hearing 28.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 01.05.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Prcommissioner Of Income Tax (Pr.Cit)-16, Mumbai Passed U/S 263 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Ms.Kinjal Bhuta.ARFor Respondent: Mr. Ankush Kapoor.DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 50C

adopted sale consideration as per DVO report and allowed deduction of (i)selling expenses(brokerage) of Rs.4,50,000/- (ii) Indexed Cost of Acquisition of the Property of Rs.78,50,000/- and (iii) Capital Gains exemption on Deposit in capital gains account Scheme of Rs.1,30,00,000/- and balance ... working has been done as under:- Particulars Amount in Rs. Sale Consideration 2,39,73,600 Less: Selling Expenses 4,50,000 Less: Indexed Cost of acquisition 78,50,000 1,56,73,600 Less: Amount deposited in Capital Gain 1,30,00,000 Account Vivek Agnihotri, Mumbai. Long Term