“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

Lal Singh Naderia, Jaipur vs. ITO, Jaipur

ITA 59/JPR/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Feb 2023AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Sh. Mukesh Khandelwal(CA)For Respondent: Sh. A. S. Nehra (Addl. CIT)

Section 143(3)Section 3Section 50CSection 50C(3)Section 54

capital gain (LTCG) Sales consideration u/s 50C read with sub-section 3 of section 50C (40% share) Rs. 77,67,931/- Less: 1. Indexed cost of acquisition as shown by the assessee. Rs. 2,38,853/- 2. Expesnes on account of patta and registration charges paid

Pragya Saxena, Bhopal vs. PCIT-1, Bhopal

In the result, this appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 126/IND/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore03 Feb 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2012-13 Smt. Pragya Saxena Pr. Cit-1 बनाम/ Bhopal Bhopal Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Awfps 9685 L Assessee By Shri S.S. Deshpandey, Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 18.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 03.02.2023

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 263Section 54F

following working: Full value of consideration 42,00,000 (sale consideration received) Less: Expenses on transfer (-)Nil Net consideration 42,00,000 Less: Indexed cost of acquisition (-)1,39,680 Less: Indexed cost of improvement (-)Nil Balance LTCG 40,60,320 Less: Exemption ... will be computed as follows:- Full value of consideration 58,66,100 Less: Expenses on transfer Nil Net consideration 58,66,100 Less: Indexed cost of acquisition (-)1,39,680 Less: Indexed cost of improvement (-)Nil Balance LTCG 57,26,420 Less: Exemption

Rakshita Patel, Delhi vs. AO Ward 49(2), Delhi

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 647/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri VedJain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri T.P. Kipgen, CIT- DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 263Section 54

long term capital gains have been calculated and worked out as under. Particulars Amount(inRs.) Sales Consideration 3,48,31,638 Less: indexed Cost of Acquisition Property received under will 3,08,121 (lndexed Cost) Gross Long Term Capital Gains 3,45,23,517 Less: Cost of Investment

Magnum Steels Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-20, New Delhi

In the result, ITA No.4706/Del/2019 is partly allowed for

ITA 4706/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Feb 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Kul Bharat

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)

LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN AMOUNT (RS.) Sale of Agriculture Land Sale (Dos: 29.10.13) 2,42,28,800/- Less : Cost of Acquisition Purchases (01.09.2009) Indexed cost of acquisition (31,81,000 46,90,968 *936/632) Long Term Capital Gain 1,95,37,832/- 6. Against this order, the assessee appealed before

Magnum Steels Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-20, New Delhi

In the result, ITA No.4706/Del/2019 is partly allowed for

ITA 4705/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Feb 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Kul Bharat

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)

Raipur Securities & Investment Limited, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of my aforesaid observations

ITA 104/RPR/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur24 Jan 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.104/Rpr/2020 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Raipur Securities & Investment Ltd. Mig 21, Indravati Colony, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan : Aaccr4419F .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-3(1), Raipur (C.G.). ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the ground no.2 of appeal raised regarding allowance of indexed cost of acquisition and indexed cost of development resulting into addition of Rs.7,97,401/-. The addition made by the A.O and not adjudicated

Smt Anupama Asswa, Indore vs. The PCIT-1, Indore

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 59/IND/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore24 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy, Judicial Memebr & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyaniआयकर अपील सं. / I.T.A. No. 59/Ind/2022 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Smt. Anupama Asawa, Pcit-I, बनाम/ Indore Indore Vs.

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Agrawal & ShriFor Respondent: 20.09.2022 & 19.12.2022

Section 142Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54BSection 54F

deed is placed on record. Further perusal of computation of income, it is noted that out of this sale consideration the assessee claimed indexed cost of acquisition amounting to Rs. 28,54,612/-. Offered long term capital gain amounting to Rs. 1,91,85,388/- and claimed exemption/deduction

Dineshbhai Jivanbhai Sanspara, Surat vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 435/SRT/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat24 Jan 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.435/Srt/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Physical Court Hearing) Dineshbhai Jivanbhai Sanspara The Principal Commissioner Of Income 1117,F-Tower, Green Avenue, Tax-1, Room No.123, Aayakar Vs. Union Park Gali Ghod Dod Bhawan, Majura Gate, Surat-395001 Road, Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Adaps 6038 H अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""थ" / Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 44ASection 54

Sahas Building, Mumbai on 28/09/2012, that, against the sale value of the original asset at Rs.1,27,56,000/- the assessee had claimed indexed cost of acquisition at Rs.6,38,002/-, indexed cost of improvement at Rs.39,24,676/-, LTCG exempt u/s 54 of Rs.54

Santosh Kumar Suri, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-40(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 816/DEL/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jan 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: Shri Nagesh Behl, C. AFor Respondent: Shri Abhishek Kumar

Section 133(6)

only ground No. 5 of grounds of appeal relating to indexation of cost of improvement and cost of acquisition and submits that the indexed cost of acquisition shall be with reference to the year in which previous owner acquired the assets and not the year in which the assessee acquired ... that while computing the capital gains arising on transfer of a capital asset acquired by the assessee under a gift or inheritance the index cost of acquisition has to be computed with reference to the year in which the previous owner first held the asset and not the year

ACIT, Circle-43(1), New Delhi vs. Santosh Suri, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 721/DEL/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jan 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: Shri Nagesh Behl, C. AFor Respondent: Shri Abhishek Kumar

Section 133(6)

Sidharth Chaudhary, Karnal vs. ITO, Ward-4, Karnal

Appeal are allowed

ITA 890/DEL/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 45

natural justice and the capital gain is computed as under.:- Sale consideration of plots at Shaheed Malkhan Singh Colony, Gharaunda : 55,76.000/- Less:- Indexed cost of acquisition. (As on 01 04.1981) Rate adopted as Rs 150/- sq yard i.e. 1806x150

Smt. Maries Joseph, Thrissur vs. DCIT, Int. Taxation, Kochi

In the result, appeal in ITA No

ITA 613/COCH/2022[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin02 Jan 2023AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri. Arun Raj S, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J M Jamuna Devi, Sr AR

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 54F

admeasuring 20.61 acres of land belonging to the assessee's husband was sold for consideration of Rs 6,19,76,305/-. After claiming indexed cost of acquisition by the assesee, the long ITA Nos.613, 566/Coch/2022 Page 4 of 14 team capital gain was worked

Smt. Maries Joseph, Thrissur vs. DCIT, Int. Taxation, Kochi

In the result, appeal in ITA No

ITA 566/COCH/2022[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin02 Jan 2023AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri. Arun Raj S, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J M Jamuna Devi, Sr AR

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 54F

Pramod Kasliwal, Jaipur vs. ITO WD. 6(2), Bhagwan Dass Road, Jaipur

Appeals of the assessee are allowed statistically

ITA 388/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Jaipur02 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Ld. Cit/Nfac.

For Appellant: Sh. Pramod Patni (CA)For Respondent: Sh. A. S. Nehra (Addl.CIT) a

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 2Section 49(1)Section 54

against the provisions of law and various judicial decisions of High Courts and Benches of ITAT and the deduction for indexed cost of acquisition Pramod Kasliwal, Jaipur vs. ITO, Jaipur should be considered as cost to the previous owner and not to date from where the assessee inherited the property ... question of law have held that capital gains arising on transfer of a capital asset acquired by assessee under a gift or will, indexed cost of acquisition has to be computed with reference to year in which previous owner first held asset and not from the year in which

Pramod Kasliwal, Jaipur vs. ITO WD. 6(2), New Central Revenue Building, Bhagwan Dass Road, Jaipur 302005

Appeals of the assessee are allowed statistically

ITA 387/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Jaipur02 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Ld. Cit/Nfac.

For Appellant: Sh. Pramod Patni (CA)For Respondent: Sh. A. S. Nehra (Addl.CIT) a

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 2Section 49(1)Section 54

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Golden Falcon Pacific Ltd., Navi Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue is dismissed and appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3895/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon'Bledcit –Circle – 10(1) V. M/S. Golden Falcon Pacific Ltd New Delhi Off. 101, Real Tech Park Sector-30, Vashi, Near Railway Station Navi Mumbai - 400705 Pan: Aadcg8569L (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S. Golden Falcon Pacific Ltd V. Dcit –Circle – 12(1) Now 10(1) C/O. M/S. Saraf & Chandra (C.A) Room No. 416-A Bharat Ins. Bldg, 3Rd Floor, 15-A Central Revenue Building Horniman Circle, Fort, Mumbai – 01 I.P. Estate, New Delhi - 110002 Pan: Aadcg8569L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(2)

declared income from capital gain against sale proceeds of ₹.62.10 crores and claimed indexed cost on cost of acquisition and also further claimed indexed cost of acquisition of ₹.63,31,97,403/- and ₹.4,44,43,835/-. The Assessing Officer observed that it shows that assessee has reduced capital gain ... claiming various expenses as addition in capital. Accordingly, assessee was asked to show cause why the other indexed cost of acquisition claimed should not be reduced from the calculation of capital gain. In response, assessee submitted as under: - “M/s Golden Falcon Pacific Ltd. Is now subsidiary company of M/s.Ken Construction

M/S. Golden Falcon Pacific Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue is dismissed and appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3653/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Section 143(2)

Madhu Kumar Patel, Hyderabad vs. ADIT, (Int. Taxn)-2, Hyderabad

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

ITA 395/HYD/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year:2015-16 Shri Madhu Kumar Patel Vs. A.D.I.T (Intl.Taxation)-2 Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Bvdpp3797G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, Ca Revenue By: Shri Rajendra Kumar, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 10/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 26/12/2022 Order Per R.K. Panda, A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 19.7.2022 Passed U/S 147 R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The I.T. Act For The A.Y 2015-16. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & A Resident Of The U.K. He Filed His Return Of Income On 31.08.2015 Declaring Total Income At Rs.2,91,07,000/- As Income From Long Term Capital Gain.

For Appellant: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar, CIT(DR)

Section 147Section 148Section 2(47)(v)

more than 3 years from the date of acquisition and hence, resulting capital gain is long-term entitling the appellant for deduction of indexed cost of acquisition. 4. The Ld. DRP in the facts and circumstances of the case is not justified in not allowing the credit of taxes ... Page 11 of 20 ITA No 395 of 2022 Madhu Kumar Patel Hyderabad 18. Ground of appeal 3a relates to the deduction of indexed cost of acquisition wherein the assessee has challenged the order of the Assessing Officer in not granting indexed cost of acquisition. 18.1 The learned Counsel

Late Shri K.Kandasamy Rep by L/H Smt. K.Amirtham, Trichy vs. ITO Ward 1(2), Trichy

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

ITA 1522/CHNY/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Dec 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1522/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2007-08 Late Shri K. Kandasamy, The Income Tax Officer, Rep. By L/H Smt. K. Amirtham, Vs. Ward – 1(2), No.52, Dindigul Main Road, Trichy. Karumandapam, Trichy – 620 001. Pan : Awgpk 0750R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 20.12.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20.12.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh: This Appeal By Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Trichy In Ita No.260/2014-15/Cit(A)-1/Try Dated 24.04.2019. The Assessment Was Framed By The Income Tax Officer, Ward-I(2), Tiruchirappalli For The Assessment Year 2007-08, U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’), Vide Order Dated 26.03.2015. 2. The Only Issue Remains For Adjudication Is As Regards To The Order Of Cit(A) Confirming The Action Of Ao In Computing Long Term Capital Gain On Sale Of Land Situated At Kuniamuthur, Coimbatore Admeasuring 6.75½ Acres For A Consideration Of Rs.45 Lakhs As Per Sale Deed But Addition Confirmed Based On Sworn Statement Of The Assessee Admitting The Sale Consideration At Rs.2,63,99,250/-.

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT

Section 131Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148

framing assessment u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act dated 26.03.2015, he has not considered the facts in proper perspective by not allowing indexed cost of acquisition, indexed cost of improvement, expenses of transfers, deduction u/s.54EC & 54F of the Act and also not considered the assessment framed in the purchasers

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle3-(3), Hyderabad vs. Mechineni Projects Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 56/HYD/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year:2015-16 Dy. C.I.T. Vs. Mechineni Projects (P) Central Circle 3(3) Ltd, Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aaecp4421H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ca Revenue By: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya, Dr Date Of Hearing: 17/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 19/12/2022 Order Per R.K. Panda, A.M This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 21.9.2020 Of The Learned Cit (A)-11, Hyderabad Relating To A.Y.2015-16. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee, A Company (Formerly Known As Pbr Projects Pvt. Ltd) Engaged In The Business Of Construction Of Residential & Commercial Buildings, Originally Filed Its Return Of Income For The A.Y 2015-16 On 31.03.2017 Admitting A Total Income Of Rs.1,16,090/-. A Search & Seizure Operation U/S 132 Of The I.T. Act Wase Conducted In M/S. Raghuram & Trishala Group On 21.11.2017 & Warrant In The Case Of M/S. Mechineni Projects (P) Ltd I.E., The Assessee

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya, DR

Section 132Section 153A

Mechineni Projects P Ltd total company share of 1,18,895 sq.feet as per JDA and total indexed cost of acquisition is around Rs.16.00 crores. The Assessing Officer reproduced the relevant extract of the statement which is as under: “Q.No. 12. I am showing you the Development Agreement cum General ... feet The approximate cost of construction is Rs 2,500 Hence the total consideration comes to Rs 29 72 crores The cost of indexed cost of acquisition is around 16 crores, I will pay the capital gains on Rs. 13.72 crores. I submit the details within a week