“indexed cost of acquisition”

Mrunal Nilesh Desai, Thane vs. ACIT, Circle 19(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is party allowed with above direction

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am Mrunal Nilesh Desai Acit,Circle 19(2) 12/D, Cedar Co-Op Housing 2Nd Floor, Matru Mandir Society, Edenwoods Cross Bldg, Tardeo, Grant Road, Vs. Pokhram 2, Mumbai-400 007 Thane (W) - 400 610 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Afepd5715N Assessee By : Shri. Tanmay Phadke Revenue By : Shri. Ujjawal Chavan Sr Ar Date Of Hearing: 19.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 15/12/2022

assessee only capital gain deserves to be taxed. The learned Authorized Representative has categorically stated that the sale consideration of ₹15 lacs has indexed cost of acquisition 1462/MUM/2022 Mrunal Nilesh Desai: A.Y. 2010-11 of the property at ₹14,04,787/- and therefore, only capital gain

M/S. Sumit Exports, Mumbai vs. The ACIT 19(3), Mumbai

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Sumit Export V. Acit – 19(3) Dw-5030, 5Th Floor Matru Mandir, Tardev Road D.Tower, Bharat Diamond Bourse Mumbai – 400 007 Bandra Kurla Complex Bandra (E), Mumbai -400051 Pan: Aacfs3599Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Rahul Sarda Department Represented By : Shri Manoj Sinha

declared the computation of income under the head Capital gain relating to above sale transaction as under: - Transfer Price 1,93,00,000 Indexed cost of acquisition (32,91,000*852/351) [1998-99] 79,88,410 Indexed cost of improvement (1,62,000*852/447) [2002-03] 31081779 Indexed cost ... after claiming the indexed cost at Rs. 18.74 lakhs showed long-term capital gain at Rs. 39.42 lakhs. The Assessing Officer worked out indexed cost of acquisition on the basis of purchase price from 1993 and completed the assessment. However, the Commissioner was of the view that the assessee

Abbasbhai A. Upletawala, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 16(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in the terms indicated above

capital gains are academic at this stage. Let the CIT(A), if so necessary, recompute the capital gains after taking into duly indexed cost of acquisition and the cost of improvement, and let the assessee furnish necessary information input in this regard. This aspect of the matter also, therefore

Bachubhai Dharamshi Arethiya, Navi Mumbai vs. Asst CIT CC 3, Thane

In the result with the above discussion Ground No-4 raised by the assessee is dismissed, as we don’t see any reason to interfere in the findings of Ld

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyalbachubhai Dharamshi Arethiya, 230, 2Nd Floor, Big Splash, Plot No. 78-79, Sec.Tor-17, Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400705. Pan: Adepp8750F ...... Appellant Vs. Acit, Cc- 3, Room No. 12, A-Wing, Ashar It Park, 6Th Floor, Road No. 16Z, Wagle Industrial Estate, Thane (West)-400604. ..... Respondent Appellant By : Ms. Ritika Agarwal, Adv. Respondent By : Sh. Chetan M. Kacha, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 18/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 14/10/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal), Pune-11 [Hereinafter Referred To As [‘Cit(A)’] Dated 17.01.2020 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961

erred in not considering an amount of Rs.160,061/- being incurred on account of legal and other charges while recalculating indexed cost of acquisition. Total Tax effect (see note below) Rs. 258,298/- 3 ITA No. 890/Mum/2020-Bachubhai Dharamshi Arethiya 2. Brief facts of the case are that a search ... asset" means a capital asset “held” by an assessee for not more than [thirty-six] months immediately preceding the date of its transfer” "Indexed cost of acquisition means an amount which bears to the cost of acquisition the same proportion as Cost Inflation Index for the year in which

Devendra K Cheda, Mumbai vs. ITO 21(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

consideration at Rs.7,23,24,899/- (4180.63 sq.mtrs x Rs.17,300/- per sq.mtr) and after 5 Shri Devendra K Chedda deducting the indexed cost of acquisition, the ld. AO computed the long term capital gains at Rs.6,60,44,262/- in the assessment. 3.3. Before

Asad Naeemuddin Moulvi, Mumbai vs. ITO (WD)- 17(1)(2), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2013-14 Mr. Asad Naeemuddin Moulvi, Income Tax Officer, Ward 17(1)(2), Room No. 8/9/10, 3Rd Floor, Faiz- 4Th Floor, Earnest House, E-Akhtar, 27, Memonwada Road, Vs. Nariman Point, Bhendi Bazar, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400 003. Pan No. Afcpm 8595 F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. M.N. Ladiwala, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Manoj Sinha, Dr Date Of Hearing : 03/08/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 19/09/2022

more than the sale consideration shown in is more than the sale consideration shown in the sale agreement. Accordingly agreement. Accordingly, after reducing indexed cost of acquisition cost of acquisition out of the valuation as per the stamp duty, the of the valuation as per the stamp duty, the Assessing

Sushiladevi R. Somani, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 18(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

respect to the sale of shares of Somani & Company Pvt. Ltd. 1.b. The learned CIT(A) erred in determining the indexed cost of acquisition of 225 ITA No.: 5795/Mum/2016 Assessment year: 2012-13 Page 2 of 5 equity shares at Rs. 1,76,625/- instead

ACIT 24(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Gandhi Plastic Industries, Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharshi () & Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal () The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs M/S Gandhi Plastic Industries 5-D, 1St Floor, Mogra Village, Income-Tax-24(1), Mumbai Room No.604, Piramal Chambers Mogra Village Road, Andheri Jeejeebhoy Lane, Lalbaug, Parel Mumbai-400 069 Mumbai Pan : Aacfg6912F Appellant Respondent

acquisition by the assessee has been allotted by the Ld.CIT(A) for earlier years. We direct the Assessing Officer to re-compute the indexed cost of acquisition as per the letter of allotment as held by the Ld.CIT(A) and to determine whether the interest cost was claimed as cost

Nitin Parkash, Thane vs. DCIT Cir 3, Thane

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं. 817/मुं/2015 ("न.व. 2011-12) आअसं. 1540/मुं/2018 ("न.व. 2011-12) Mr. Nitin Parkash , 221/222, Swasstik Plaza, Pokhran Road No.2, Subhash Nagar, Thane (W) – 400 601 Pan: Aaspp-1411-G ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle- 3, Thane. ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : S/Shri Rajiv Khandelwal & Akash Kumar ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Tharian Oommen& Shri B.K.Bagchi सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 27/05/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 22/08/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.817/Mum/2015 Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Thane [In Short ‘The Cit(A)] Dated 01/01/2015 For The Assessment Year 2011-12. This Appeal Is In The Second Round Before The Tribunal. Earlier This Appeal Of The Assessee Was Decided By The Tribunal Vide Order Dated 19/03/2018. Thereafter, The Assessee Filed Miscellaneous Application, Vide Ma No.271/Mum/2018 Seeking

price of Rs.2,03,36,000/- from the F.Y.2004-05 i.e. the year in which the assessee had booked the flat. The assessee computed indexed cost of acquisition at Rs.3,01,22,700/-. The Assessing Officer rejected assessee’s computation of indexed cost and applied indexation as and when the installments ... other rights whatsoever. The ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee further referred to Explanation to section 48 of the Act, wherein ‘indexed cost of acquisition’ is defined. The ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee asserted that the expression used is ‘ the first year in which the asset was held