“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

Charu Agarwal, Gurgaon vs. DCIT (International Taxation) Circle, Gurgaon

ITA 1367/DEL/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Feb 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2017-18 Charu Agarwal, Vs Dcit (International Taxation), Tower B-3, Flat 1203, Circle Gurgaon. Parsvnath Exotica, Golf Course Road, Sector 53, Gurgaon (Haryana). Pan: Aclpa8443J Assessment Year: 2017-18 Dcit (International Taxation), Vs. Charu Agarwal, Circle Gurgaon. Tower B-3, Flat 1203, Parsvnath Exotica, Golf Course Road, Sector 53, Gurgaon (Haryana). Pan: Aclpa8443J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Revenue By : Shri M.K. Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 10.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.02.2022 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: These Are Cross Appeals. The First One Is Filed By The Assessee & The Second One Is By The Revenue & Are Directed Against The Order Dated 27Th May, 2020 Of

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.K. Jain, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 54Section 54F

Capital gains’ and rejected the claim of improvement of the house to the tune of Rs.9,28,079/-. For the purpose of computing indexed cost of acquisition, the AO adopted the cost of acquisition at Rs.30,48,998/- as against Rs.74,50,517/- claimed by the assessee on the basis

M/S Godha Realtors Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(2), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1116/BANG/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Feb 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R

Total Sale Consideration 108,100,000 -- Less: Expenditure of Transfer 108,100,000 Less: Indexed Cost of Acquisition The aforesaid property was purchased for a sum of Rs.9,00,00,000/- in an auction and possession of the same was taken on 26.10.2007. Accordingly the Indexed Cost of Acquisition

M/S Godha Realtors Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(2), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1115/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R

Ramjilal G Johar, Mumbai vs. ITO 19(3)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 409/MUM/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar () & Shri Ravish Sood () Ramjilal G. Johar Ito 19(3)(1) C/O M/S Arvind G. Shah Vs. Matru Mandir, 407 Lotus House, 33A Aayakar Karyalaya, New Marine Lines Nana Chowk, Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 007

For Appellant: Shri Mayur A. Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Mahendra Ahuja. Sr. D.R

Section 271(1)(c)Section 54

6/17, Mangla Apartment, Walkeshwar Road, Mumbai, for a consideration of Rs.3,24,44,000/-, wherein his share of capital gain after claiming indexed cost of acquisition a/w improvement worked out at Rs.1,41,84,044/-. The assessee and his wife invested an amount in Capital Gain Account Scheme (CGAS) with

ACIT, Jammu vs. Sh Vikramaditya Singh, Jammu

In the result, all the fours appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the three Cross Objections as well as the ground as per Rule 27 are allowed

ITA 269/ASR/2007[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jan 2022AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Aggarwal, SrFor Respondent: Shri S.D. Kapila, Spl

Section 139(9)Section 147Section 148

dispute the sale consideration received by the shareholders. However, while determining the amount of capital gain, he proceeded to adopt the indexed cost of acquisition as on 01.04.1981 at face value in the case of Shri M.K. Ajatshatru Singh; whereas in the case of remaining three shareholders, he proceeded

ACIT, Cir-II, Jammu vs. Smt. Yashorajya Laxmi, Jammu

In the result, all the fours appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the three Cross Objections as well as the ground as per Rule 27 are allowed

ITA 268/ASR/2007[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jan 2022AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Aggarwal, SrFor Respondent: Shri S.D. Kapila, Spl

Section 139(9)Section 147Section 148

ACIT, Jammu vs. Dr Karan Singh, Jammu

In the result, all the fours appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the three Cross Objections as well as the ground as per Rule 27 are allowed

ITA 267/ASR/2007[1998-99\u005cu005cu005cu005cu005cu005cu005cu005c]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jan 2022

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Aggarwal, SrFor Respondent: Shri S.D. Kapila, Spl

Section 139(9)Section 147Section 148

ACIT, Jammu vs. Sh M.K. Ajat Shatru, Jammu

In the result, all the fours appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the three Cross Objections as well as the ground as per Rule 27 are allowed

ITA 263/ASR/2003[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jan 2022AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Aggarwal, SrFor Respondent: Shri S.D. Kapila, Spl

Section 139(9)Section 147Section 148

ITO 28 (3)(4), Mumbai vs. Vasant Purshottam Thakkar, Mumbai

Accordingly the cross objection of assessee is allowed

ITA 2515/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jan 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale ()

Section 147Section 148Section 151

circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in directing the A.O to re-compute the Indexed Cost of Acquisition as on 01.04.1981 accepted in assessment order at Rs.46,03,50,274/-considering l/7th Share of the assessee on this account and allow carry forward ... learned assessing officer took the fair market value as disclosed by the assessee as on 1/4/1981. Based on FMV adopted by assessee, indexed cost of acquisition of the property [ upto AY 2010-11] was determined at ₹ 460,350,274/– , where assessee‟s share of interest in the above property

M/S. Asaria Lalji Vador, Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT -7, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 559/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Blem/S. Asaria Lalji Vador V. Office Of Pcit – 27 C-21, Mahavir Jyot Room No. 401, 4Th Floor Opp. Odeon Shopping Centre Tower No. 6 Ghatkopar (E), Mumbai -400077 Vashi Railway Station Building Complex Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400703 Pan: Aabpv0149A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Pradip Kapasi Department By : Ms. Shailja Rai

For Appellant: Shri Pradip KapasiFor Respondent: Ms. Shailja Rai

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54E

Assessee has 15 M/s. Asaria Lalji Vador declared the capital gain in his return of income as per the sale consideration after adjusting indexed cost of acquisition. Assessee also claimed deduction u/s. 54EC of the Act by depositing ₹.50 lacks as per the provisions of section u/s. 54EC

Zuari Investements Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 27(4), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4854/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jan 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Narender Kumar Choudhary(Through Video Conferencing) Zuari Investments Ltd., Vs. Ito Plot No.2, Zamrudpur Ward – 27(4), Community Centre, New Delhi Kailash Colony Extension, New Delhi-110 048

Section 143(3)Section 14A

noticed that assessee had sold shares of M/s ANS Industries Ltd. (unlisted shares) at Rs.1,01,00,000/- and it had reduced the indexed cost of acquisition of Rs.95,86,498/- and further Rs.18,01,517/- on account of indexed interest cost. The assessee was asked to justify the claim

Pawa Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Pr.CIT- 7, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3829/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jan 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. T. Kipgen, CIT/DR

Section 143(3)Section 2Section 263

According to the assessee against such a receipt, total expenses were claimed to the tune of Rs.19,26,71,561/-including the indexed cost of acquisition at Rs.13,49,54,129/-and the long-term capital loss of Rs. 2,45,85,83/- was claimed. Assessee pleaded that the compensation ... assessee towards compensation. As against this amount, assessee claimed the expenses to the tune of Rs. 19,26,71,567/-which includes indexed cost of acquisition at Rs. 30,49,54,129/-and claimed a long-term capital loss to the tune of Rs. 2,45,85,883/-and declared

Late Sh. Brij Kishore Kochar Through Legal Heir Mr. Amit Kochar, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 18, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5481/DEL/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jan 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Gs Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

Section 132Section 142Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 152ASection 153ASection 254Section 80

showing Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) of Rs. 7, 55, 401/-, sale consideration of Rs. 22, 50, 000/-and indexed cost of acquisition at Rs. 14, 94, 599/-. 3. By way of order dated 20/3/2014 passed under section 143(3)/153A of the Act learned Assessing Officer observed that ... proof, the sale consideration was taken dated 23 Lacs instead of Rs. 22.5 Lacs as declared by the assessee, and also the indexed cost of acquisition was taken at Rs. 40 Lacs as against the declared value of Rs. 14, 94, 599/- and to prevent leakage of Revenue the learned

Sunandan Kumar Minocha, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-63(1), New Delhi

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3135/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble, Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Harpal Singh, Senior DR

Section 127Section 143(3)Section 54

units, the assessee had sold 3 units for a net consideration of Rs.2,29,70,000/- during the year under consideration. The indexed cost of acquisition of property was calculated at Rs.75,20,79,796/- which resulted in long term capital gain of Rs.1,54,49,203/-. The assessee claimed

Davinder Singh, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-40(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 3587/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Nov 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda

For Appellant: -None-For Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. D.R

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

Rs.80 lakhs in A.Y. 2013-2014. While claiming deduction /exemption under section 54 of the I.T. Act, 1961, the assessee determined the indexed cost of acquisition at Rs.79,78,860/-. As an alternative plea the benefit of purchase of a residential house in February, 2015 for Rs.50 lakhs was claimed

Jagdish, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 1(3), Ghaziabad

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

ITA 1619/DEL/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Oct 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda

For Appellant: Shri Somil AgarwalFor Respondent: Sh. R.K. Gupta, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 2Section 54F

Rejecting the various explanations given by the assessee, the A.O. determined the long term capital gains at Rs.14,35,651/- after allowing the indexed cost of acquisition at Rs.5,89,349/- from sale consideration of Rs.20,25,000/-. After allowing deduction of Rs.6,54,800/- under section

Ms. Uma Gupta, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 3818/DEL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Oct 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2006-07 Uma Gupta, Vs. Acit, Aerens Bimaldeep Complex, Central Circle-9, Behind Pocket-3, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aahpg0455E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rajeshwar Painuly, Ca Revenue By : Shri Ajay Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 05.10.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.10.2021 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Ex Parte Order Dated 23Rd March, 2016 Of The Cit(A)-25, Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2006-07. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That A Search & Seizure & Survey Operation U/S 132/133A Of The It Act, 1961 Were Conducted On 17Th August, 2011 In The Case Of The Assessee Along With Other Cases Of The Group At Various Residential & Business Premises. In Response To Notice U/S 153A, The Assessee Filed The Return Of Income Declaring Income From House Property At Rs.1,26,000/-, Income From Bank Interest At Rs.241/- & Income From Dividend At Rs.53,050/-. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, The Ao Observed That The Assessee Has Declared Capital Loss On Sale Of Property At Rs.32,536/- Giving Note That The Indexed Cost Of The Property Is More By An Amount Of Rs.32,536/- Than The Sale Consideration Of The Land. However, In The Balance Sheet, The Assessee Has Credited A Sum Of Rs.80,032.67 As Profit On Sale Of Land. In Absence Of Any Proper Explanation From The Side Of The Assessee, The Ao Treated The Long-Term Capital Gain At Rs.80,032.67 & Determined The Total Income Of The Assessee At Rs.1,71,997/-, After Allowing Deduction U/S 80C At Rs.34,276/- & Allowing The Exemption U/S 10(34) Of The Act On Dividend Income At Rs.53,050/-.

For Appellant: Shri Rajeshwar Painuly, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 10(34)Section 132Section 153ASection 234BSection 48Section 80C

assessing officer and confirming the addition of Rs. 80,032/- on account of capital gain despite the fact that no benefit of indexed cost of acquisition under proviso to section 48 of the Income Tax Act was allowed to the assessee. Moreover, no incriminating documents were found during the course ... long-term capital gain. However, it is not known when the property was purchased and when it was sold and what is the indexed cost of acquisition. The order of the AO is silent on all these vital aspects. Since the assessee did not appear before

Sangeeta, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 53(5), New Delhi

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

ITA 1768/DEL/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Sept 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2010-11 Sangeeta, Vs. Ito, A-190, 3Rd Floor, Ward-53(5), Gautam Nagar, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Blsps7011K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Lokendrajit Paonam, Ca Revenue By : Shri R.K. Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.08.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.09.2021 Order

For Appellant: Shri Lokendrajit Paonam, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.K. Gupta, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 54

determining the long-term capital gain at Rs.16,29,740/- the computation of which was as under:- Sale consideration Rs.24,00,000/- Less: Indexed cost of acquisition 1,25,000/223 (FY 1992-93)*632 (FY 2009-10) Rs.3,54,260/- Long Term Capital Gains Rs.20,45,740/- Amount used

The Society of the Sisters of Othe Distiitute, Delhi vs. ACIT, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5372/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Aug 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 5372/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 The Society Of The Sisters Of The Vs Acit, Destitute, Jivodaya Hospital, Ashok Cpc, Vihar, New Delhi-110052 Bangalore (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacts9595A Assessee By : Sh. Raman Murali, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Prakash Dubey, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 26.07.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.08.2021

For Appellant: Sh. Raman Murali, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Prakash Dubey, Sr. DR

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 45Section 55

Section 55. Thus the difference between the capital gain utilized in acquisition of new assets viz., Rs.2,78,38,080/- and the indexed cost of acquisition viz., Rs.2,51,22,641/- viz., Rs.27,15,449/- is to be considered as application of capital gain for charitable purpose which would

Nina Luthra, Noida vs. ITO, Ward- 1(2), Noida

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3861/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Aug 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Nina Luthra, F No 20, Sector-37, Vs. Ito, Noida, Uttar Pradesh Ward-1(2), Pan: Actpl6023F Noida (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Aditi Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri R. K. Gupta, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 50CSection 50C(2)Section 54Section 69

That the learned CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the order of the learned Assessing Officer wherein he has inadvertently considered the indexed cost of acquisition at Rs. 69,21,021/- instead of Rs. 69,91,206/- (as per the Income Tax Return filed by the appellant for the year ... contractual consideration and the circle rate is only 8.98%. The assessee submitted that even if sale consideration is taken at circle rate the index cost of acquisition is Rs. 69,21,021/- resulting into a long term capital gain of Rs. 90,10,040/- out of which the assessee invested