“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

A.C.I.T. Circle-41(4)(1), Mumbai vs. Shri Awadhnarayan Laxminarayan Singh, Mumbai

ITA 6226/MUM/2025[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jan 2026AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya, ARFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Mohan,(Sr. DR)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 149Section 150(1)

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Guman Singh Kushwah, Shivpuri vs. Income Tax Officer, Ashoknagar

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

ITA 544/AGR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Agra22 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri M. Balaganeshgumnam Singh Kushwah, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Infront Of Collector Kothi, Ashok Nagar, Shiv Colony, Shivpuri, Mp Mp (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Bcjpk2729Q Assessee By : Shri Ashish Goyal, Ca Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 22/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 22/01/2026

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 194Section 194ISection 201Section 206ASection 50C

Since there were no details filed by the assessee for the cost of acquisition, the Learned AO estimated the indexed cost of acquisition at Rs 1,00,000 and recomputed the long term capital gains at Rs 11,40,000 and completed the reassessment. The assessee challenged the reassessment order

Padmaja Rajesh Harve, Mumbai vs. ACIT - 41(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5343/MUM/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2026AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Bijayananda Prusethpadmaja Rajesh Harve Vs. Acit-41(1)(1) Room No. 425, 4Th Floor, Kautilyabhavan, 1201-A, 64 Greens Building, Tagore Road, C-41 To C-43, G Block, Bandrakurla Santacruz West, Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai-400054. Mumbai -400051. Pan/Gir No:Aaxph1769E (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 250Section 45Section 47Section 47ASection 54Section 54F

This was the period for which the appellant was holding the shares which were acquired on 20.05.2004 by paying Rs.50,000/-. The “indexed cost of acquisition” and “indexed cost of any improvement” on Rs.50,000/- are to be reduced as per the provisions relating to the mode of computation

Milan Theatres P Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle 12(3)(2), Mumbai

ITA 5072/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Section 143(3)Section 342Section 45(2)

capital gains on conversion of capital asset into stock-in-trade under section 45(2) of the Act, the denial of proportionate indexed cost of acquisition, the non-allowance of cost of other capital assets forming part of the mall, the denial of TDS credit

Oneel Verma, Nashik vs. ITO-5(1), Bhopal

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

ITA 394/IND/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 Jan 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member), Shri B.M. Biyani (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Devendra Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. D.R

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250

Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), CIT (A), Mumbai has erred in assessing capital gain at Rs. 32,67,500/- without giving deduction for the indexed cost of acquisition amounting to Rs. 22,80,700/- for F.Y 2008-09. The Application for condonation of delay of 65 days in filing ... amounting to ₹32,67,500/- as unexplained income / long-term capital gain in the hands of the assessee, without allowing any deduction towards indexed cost of acquisition. I.TA No. 394/IND/2025 A.Y. 2009-10 4 Oneel Verma Vs. ITO 5. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before

Madhav Pandurang Bhanage, Nashik vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1), Nashik

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed as per terms indicated herein above

ITA 2553/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2553/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Madhav Pandurang Vs Ito, Ward - Bhanage, 1(1), Nashik Mangalmurti Swami Co-Op Society, Lamkhede Mala, Meri Colony S.O., Nashik- 422004 Maharashtra Pan-Ablpb0449A Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Chinmay PathakFor Respondent: Shri Vishwajit Shinde

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 151Section 151ASection 250Section 50C

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण " एस एम सी "न्यायपीठ पुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "SMC" BENCH, PUNE BEFORE Dr

Adel Saini, Faridabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Faridabad

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

ITA 2372/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.2372/Del/2025 (Assessment Year 2013-14) Adel Saini, Income Tax Officer, H.No.32, Purani Chungi Old Ward-1(1), Faridabad-121001 Vs. Faridabad, Haryana. Haryana. Pan-Ayfps6803A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Ms. Rajkumari, Ca Department By Shri Khitesh Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 25/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 21/01/2026 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: Both The Captioned Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (‘The Cit(A)’ In Short) Both Dated 11/02/2025 & Arising Out Of The Order Passed U/S 147/143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ For Short) For Assessment Years 2012-13 & 2013-14 Respectively.

Section 147Section 54B

taken by the AO and direct the AO to re-compute the capital gain after giving deduction on account of statutory expenses like indexed cost of acquisitions. We find no error in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and, accordingly, the same is hereby upheld. 9. In the result

Adel Saini, Faridabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Faridabad

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

ITA 2371/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Section 147Section 54B

Manishabne Kaizad Motawala, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 2(3) (1), Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 807/SRT/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Surat19 Jan 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Sanjay Gargआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.807/Srt/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2022-23 Manishabne Kaizad Motawala The Tto बनाम/ A-32, Yoganand Nagar Ward-2(3)(1) V/S. Sacin Roadsankri Surat – 395 001 Akoti B.O., Surat 394 355 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aotpp 0951 L (अपीलाथ&/ Appellant) ('( यथ&/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Revenue By : Shri Ajay Uke, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 19/01/2026 आदेश/O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr.DR

Section 250

matter to the Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO), who estimated the value at Rs.1,000/- per sq.meter as on 1.4.2001. The AO calculated the indexed cost of acquisition on the basis of DVO’s report and added the differential amount. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition so made

The Punjab State Federation of Cooperative House Building Societies Ltd., Chandigarh vs. ACIT, Chandigarh

In the result, both the above appeals of the Assessee are dismissed

ITA 797/CHANDI/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Atul Goyal, C.A (Virtual Mode)For Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 57oSection 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

under section 80P(2)(a)(i). The assessee also disclosed long-term capital gain from sale of shops at Pakhowal, Ludhiana, and claimed indexed cost of acquisition. 4.1 The AO held that all income must first be classified under the proper heads before considering deductions. Based on judicial precedents

The Punjab State Federation of Cooperative House Building Societies Ltd., Chandigarh vs. DCIT, Chandigarh

In the result, both the above appeals of the Assessee are dismissed

ITA 1308/CHANDI/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: the appeal is finally heard.

For Appellant: Shri Atul Goyal, C.A (Virtual Mode)For Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 57oSection 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

Balaji Finance, Gawal vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Mahbubnagar

ITA 1375/HYD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Jan 2026AY 2022-23

sold one immovable property for a consideration of Rs.2,25,67,000/-. Out of the said sale consideration, the assessee had claimed indexed cost of acquisition of land at Rs.23,01,420/-, cost of construction incurred up to 31.03.2021 at Rs.1,50,45,312/- and cost of construction incurred during ... Rs.1,50,45,312/- also included the cost of land. On this premise, the Ld. AO disallowed the assessee's claim towards indexed cost of acquisition of land amounting to Rs.23,01,420/-. Consequently, the said amount was added to the long-term capital gains of the assessee. The assessment

Ramvir Yadav, Gurgaon vs. ITO Ward- 3(1), Delhi

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

ITA 2857/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jan 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 143(3)Section 234Section 250Section 270ASection 548Section 54B

agricultural land for INR 9,23,31,249/- which was purchased in financial year 2010-11 for INR 97,02,150/-. After claiming indexed cost of acquisition, the capital gains were declared of INR 7,39,14,593/- and against the said capital gain, the assessee has claimed deduction

Prem Singh, Chamba vs. ACIT Circle Palampur, Palampur

In the result, the appeal for AY 2017-18 stands partly allowed

ITA 947/CHANDI/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 946/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 947/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Prem Singh Dcit Circle, Palampur बनाम/ The Palace. Chamba Himachal Pradesh - 176061 Vs. Himachal Pradesh – 176310 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aampr-8876-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ajay Jain (Ca) – Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri Bharat Bhushan Garg (Cit) (Virtual) - Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13-11-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13-01-2026 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. The Assessee Is In Further Appeals Before Us For Assessment Years (Ay) 2015-16 & 2017-18 Which Arises Out Of Separate Orders Of Learned First Appellate Authority. First, We Take Up Appeal For Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16 Which Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac [Cit(A)] Dated 22-07-2025 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S 143(3) Of The Act On 29-12-2017. The Assessee Is Aggrieved By Computation Of Capital

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Jain (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Bharat Bhushan Garg (CIT) (Virtual) - Ld. DR

Section 143(3)Section 48Section 54Section 54F

Homes Private Ltd. (AHPL) vide sale deed dated 12-02-2015 for total sale consideration of Rs.81.05 Crores. However, the assessee claimed full indexed cost of acquisition for Rs.3,89,120/- out of which proportionate amount of Rs.25,088/- was disallowed by Ld. AO for the portion of land which ... regular return of income but claimed expenditure of Rs.174 Lacs. Later on, the assessee revised its return of income and made claim of indexed cost of acquisition for Rs.80 Lacs and revised the expenditure wholly and exclusively incurred in connection with transfer for Rs.97 Lacs. The amount of Rs.80 Lacs

Sh. Devendra Dutt Pant, Haridwar vs. DCIT, Uttarkahand

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 149/DDN/2025[2106-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun14 Jan 2026AY 2106-2017

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Manish Agarwal

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Aggarwal, Sr. Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. A. S. Rana, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 54BSection 54E

such, deduction under section 54B of the Act be allowed to assessee - appellant. ISSUE NO. 2 IS WITH REGARDS TO DENIAL OF INDEXED COST OF ACQUISITION OF A SUM OF RS. 5,33,063/- 8. In this regards, it is most humbly submitted that the assessee had claimed indexed cost

Chandrashekhar Vishnu Paranjpe (HUF), Pune vs. ITO Ward 3(1), Pune

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

ITA 1587/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Suhas P Bora andFor Respondent: Shri Madhan Thirmanpalli, Addl.CIT

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 271(1)(c)Section 54F

base year. This, according to the Assessing Officer translates to Rs.415/- per square meter. Thus, while claiming indexation, the indexed cost of acquisition was taken at Rs.1,51,85,920/-. However, the Assessing Officer did not accept the cost of acquisition as on 01.04.1981 adopted by the assessee ... acquisition as on 01.04.1981 at Rs.14,83,000/- which gives an effective rate of Rs.415/- per square meter, the assessee computed the indexed cost of acquisition at Rs.1,51,85,920/- and declared the long term capital gain at Rs.40,40,671/-. We find the Assessing Officer, after obtaining

Syken Suresh Mehta, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 19(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 6771/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jan 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Jagadishsuken Suresh Mehta, Income Tax Officer, A-28, Sterling Apartments, 19(3)(1), 38, Peddar Road, Mumbai Cumballa Hills, Vs. Mumbai- 400026

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, CA And Shri Tarang Mehta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kanti Datta, CIT-DR

Section 48

these two grounds are dismissed as not pressed. 3. In Ground No.3, assessee has challenged the disallowance of Rs.39,80,263/- claimed towards indexed cost of acquisition of land. 4. Briefly the facts are, the assessee acquired 18,443 sq.ft. of land in Coimbatore through registered sale deed dated ... Before us, learned counsel appearing for the assessee submitted that the fact that the assessee is entitled to get the benefit of indexed cost of acquisition in terms of Section 48 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the ‘Act’) cannot be questioned. He submitted, at the time

Sowmya Chalasani, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-6(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 706/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.706/Hyd/2025 Assessment Year 2018-2019 Sowmya Chalasani, The Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad – 500 073. Ward-6(1), Telangana. Vs. Hyderabad. Pan Amopc6392F (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Ca Maitreya राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Ms U Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 07.01.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 09.01.2026 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: CA MaitreyaFor Respondent: MS U Mini Chandran, CIT-DR

Section 139Section 147Section 148

some other property and, therefore, the same cannot be accepted. Thus, the Assessing Officer computed the long term capital gains after allowing the indexed cost of acquisition and since 7 ITA.No.706/Hyd./2025 the assessee failed to file any supporting evidence in respect of the cost of improvement, the Assessing

Gaurav Dye House, Panipat, Haryana vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward -(1), Panipat, Haryana

ITA 1004/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jan 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal

ITA No.1004/Del/2025 Gaurav Dye House Vs. ITO THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “E” BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SUDHIR

Meera Sinha, Ranchi vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Ranchi

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

ITA 27/RAN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi05 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri M.K.Chowdhary, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ram Chandra Marndi, Sr.DR

Section 147Section 148Section 54

such the question of receiving any alleged sale consideration during the year does not arise and the AO erred in not reducing the indexed cost of acquisition of land and building out of the alleged taxable long term capital gain. Accordingly, ld. AR submitted that ld. AO erred