“indexed cost of acquisition”

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

ACIT 2(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Mahima Stocks Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the orders passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal to the extent it is against the assessee are hereby quashed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singhacit – 2(2)(1) Vs. M/S Mahima Stocks Room No. 545, 5Th Floor Pvt Ltd Aayakarbhavan, 1,Gaureshapartments, M.K.Road, Old Police Line, Mumbai – 400020. Andheri (E) Mumbai – 400069. Pan/Gir No. : Aaecm2983K Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Smt.Mahita Nair.Dr Respondent By : Shri.Vimal Punmiya.Ar Date Of Hearing 10.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 24.08.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Cit(A)- National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Passed U/S143(3) & U/Sec250 Of The Act. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

Mahima Stocks Pvt Ltd., Mumbai. the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court of Karnataka and observed that the assessee is entitled for deduction of indexed cost of acquisition from the long term capital gains for the purpose of Section 115JB of the Act and allowed the assessee appeal. Aggrieved ... hearing, the Ld. DR submitted that the CIT(A) erred in granting the relief to the assessee by directing the reduction of indexed cost of acquisition from the long term capital gains for the purpose of computing book profits u/sec115JB of the Act. Further there is no provision

Mr. Mahesh D. Saini, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-35(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vp & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1929/Mum/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2011-12) Mr. Mahesh D. Saini बिधम/ Ito, Ward-35(2)(3) 203, Lukhi Niwas Kailash Room No. 745, 7Th Floor, Vs. Puri, Upper Govind Nagar, Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To Plot No. 135, Malad (E), C-43, G Block, Bandra Mumbai-400097. Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aajps1048M (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Haresh B. Shah Revenue By: Dr. Pratap Narayan Sharma (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 27/06/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 10/08/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-46, Mumbai Dated 28.02.2020 For Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.1,05,37,002/- As Long Term Capital Gain (Ltcg) Treating The Purported Capital Asset As Transfer In View Of The Provisions Of Section 2(47) (V) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) R.W. Section 53A Of The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 (4 Of 1882) (Hereinafter In Short As “Topa”). 3. Brief Facts Of The Case As Noted By The Ld. Cit(A) Is That The Ao Noticed That During The Year, The Assessee Jointly With His Two (2) Brothers, Viz Shri Formal Dedrajmali Alias Sainik/Siani & Shri Kailash Dedraj Mali Alias Sainik/Saini, Entered Into Sale Cum

computed above 2 Fair Market Value as on 6,17,725 01.04.1981 as per Regd. Valuer Report dated 12.02.2016 3 Indexed cost of acquisition 15,62,998 (i) Year of indexation allowable to the assessee, as discussed above: 1995-96 Cost Inflation Index: 281 (ii) Year in which right title

Smt. Monica Chattopadhya, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle-28(2), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blesmt. Monica Chattopadhya V. Acit – Circle – 28(2) 321, Reena Complex Tower No. 6 R.N. Road, Vidyavihar (W) Vashi Railway Commercial Complex Navi Mumbai-400703 Mumbai – 400086 Pan: Ajipc1975D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Malav P. Sheth Department By : Mahita Nair

learned AO ought to have considered the Fair Market Value (FMV) of the property as on 1.4.1981 in order to arrive at indexed cost of acquisition since the case of the appellant falls u/s 55(2)(b). Accordingly the additions made by the learned AO by considering estimated cost ... additions made by the learned AO u/s 154 considering the Estimated cost as on 1.4.1981 as against FMV as on 1.4.1981 for computing indexed cost of acquisition u/s 48 is without stating any mistake apparent from 8 Smt. Monica Chattopadhya the records. Thus it is our humbly submission that

Hitesh Chhatwal, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC -5(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed while for the appeal of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singh

family, during the year under consideration i.e F.Y.2011-12, the assessee had received a sum of Rs.17,77,77,777/- and after reducing the indexed cost of acquisition of Nil, the assessee has offered the net amount of Rs.17,77,77,777/- as long term capital gains. The assessee had also

Chandrashekher Ramraj Singh, Mumbai vs. ITO, 23(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Blechandrashekher Ramraj Singh V. Income Tax Officer – 23(1)(3) 22-A, House No.4 108, Matru Mandir Sherley Rajan Road, Bandra (W) Tardeo, Nana Chowk Mumbai – 400050 Grant Road, Mumbai – 400 007 Pan: Aanps7840R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwal & Shri Hemant Bahedia Department By : Shri R.A. Dhyani

term capital gain is to be computed on the balance sale consideration of Rs.1,11,75,000/-, by reducing the same with the indexed cost of acquisition of the land. The AO is directed to recompute the total income of the appellant accordingly, and allow benefit of deduction

Shehla Akhtar Rangoonwala, Mumbai vs. ITO 19 (3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey () & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman ()

appellant has calculated the long term capital gains as sale consideration of Rs.2,35,00,000 less indexed cost of acquisition of Rs 1,60,00,000/- being Rs 2,03,46,076 and indexed cost of stamp duty of Rs 8,14,230/- being Rs 10,35,399/. However

Akhtar Zain Rangoonwala, Mumbai vs. ITO 19 (1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey () & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman ()

appellant has calculated the long term capital gains as sale consideration of Rs.2,35,00,000 less indexed cost of acquisition of Rs 1,60,00,000/- being Rs 2,03,46,076 and indexed cost of stamp duty of Rs 8,14,230/- being Rs 10,35,399/. However

Shri Reji Easow, Mumbai vs. ITO - 3(5), Thane

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

offer to tax ‘Nil’ long term capital gains computed as under: Sale Consideration (21.05.2014) : INR 1,15,00,000/- Less Indexed Cost of Acquisition (03.06.2003) : INR 35,07,985/- Capital Gains INR 79,92,015/- Less Deduction claimed under Section 54 INR 79,92,015/- LTCG offered

DCIT-8(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Shri. Ashok Santu Bhavani, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the appellant is treated as allowed

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaledcit – 8(1)(2) Vs. Shri Ashok Santu Room No. 625, 6Th Floor Bhavnani Aayakar Bhavan, 22, New Pushpamilan, Mk Marg, Mumbai – 67 Worli Hills, Worli, 400 020. Mumbai – 400018

second ground of appeal is concerned, I am in agreement with the contention of the appellant that it is entitled for deduction of indexed cost of acquisition while computing long-term capital gains, under provisions of section 48 of the IT Act, in respect of the shares sold

Suprerior Financial Consultancy Services P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 1(3), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble&

investment of Rs.20/[Rs.120/- Rs.100/], in the tax return, the same amount will be offered to tax as capital gain (here the indexed cost of acquisition is not considered for sake of simplicity) The question now arises is whether the assessee has obtained any amount that can be assessed

ITO 25(2)(5), Mumbai vs. Kirit Raojibhai Patel, Mumbai

In the result appeal of the learned AO is dismissed

Bench: Sri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Sri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm The Income Tax Officer- Kirit Raojibhai Patel 25(2)(5) 5Th Floor Ram Niwas, 34, Room No. 506, C-10, Vallabhnagar, N.S. Road, Vs. Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Bkc, Juhu, Vile Parele(W), Mumbai-400 051 Mumbai-400 049 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabpp3139J Assessee Represented By : Shri Rashmikant Choksey, Ar Department Represented By : Shri K.K. Mishra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 08.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.02.2022

working out the chargeability of the capital gain tax where the sale consideration of Rs 1,86,20,000 was reduced by the indexed cost of acquisition of ₹ 7,555,170 373 resulting into a long-term capital gain of Rs 1,30,64,827 and as assessee has made