← All Phrases

“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
13
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
13
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
11
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
10
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
10
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

Pushpa Khandelwal, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 63(3), New Delhi

ITA 1521/DEL/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year : 2011-12 Pushpa Khandelwal, Vs Ito, 686, Baratooti Chowk, Ward-63(3), Sadar Bazar, New Delhi-110006. New Delhi. Pan-Aahpk9178N Appellant Respondent Appellant By Sh. Ashok Khandelwal, Ca Respondent By Sh.Gaurav Pundir, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 19.07.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 30.07.2021

Section 142(1)Section 148Section 50CSection 50C(2)(a)Section 54

show long term capital gain on property bearing no.229, C 105, Noida and the capital gain of Rs.36,72,039/- earned after deduction indexed cost of acquisition is claimed exempt u/s 54 of the 1. T. Act, 1961 by investing the amount in purchase of house property. However, no evidence

Harish Tyagi, Ghaziabad vs. DCIT Circle-1, Ghaziabad

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

ITA 8489/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jul 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Gupta, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Vijay Kumar Kataria, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)

assessee has sold the immovable property for Rs.30 lakhs and offered for tax long term capital gains of Rs.9,05,158/- after claiming indexed cost of acquisition of Rs.13,04,842/- and indexed cost of improvement of Rs.7,90,000/-. The A.O. accepted the indexed cost of acquisition in view

Raj Kumar Chhabra, Haryana vs. ITO Ward-2(2), Faridabad

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

ITA 29/DEL/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jul 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri O.P. Kant[Through Video Conferencing] Assessment Year: 2011-12

Section 44ASection 54F

sold the shop for a sum of ₹ 30 lakh, on which long-term capital gain of ₹ 25,28,852/- was shown after deducting indexed cost of acquisition from total sale proceeds of shop. Against the long-term capital gain, the assessee further claimed deduction under section 54F on account

Addl. CIT, Special Range- 4, New Delhi vs. Global Health Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

The appeal of the department is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4871/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: The Completion

Section 45(2)

lieu of 30,000 sq. ft. built-up super area and offered the same as long term capital gain after adjusting the indexed cost of acquisition of proportionate cost of 5 acres of land. The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed the claim of cost of acquisition on the ground that since ... appeal respectively: Grounds of appeal in ITA No.4237/Del/2017 (Assessee’ Appeal): “The learned CIT (A) erred in fact and in law in allowing indexation cost of acquisition till A.Y.2008-09 instead of A.Y. 2011-12 as claimed in the return.” Grounds of appeal in ITA No.4871/Del/2017 (Department’s Appeal

Global Health Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 10(1), New Delhi

The appeal of the department is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4237/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: The Completion

Section 45(2)

lieu of 30,000 sq. ft. built-up super area and offered the same as long term capital gain after adjusting the indexed cost of acquisition of proportionate cost of 5 acres of land. The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed the claim of cost of acquisition on the ground that since ... appeal respectively: Grounds of appeal in ITA No.4237/Del/2017 (Assessee’ Appeal): “The learned CIT (A) erred in fact and in law in allowing indexation cost of acquisition till A.Y.2008-09 instead of A.Y. 2011-12 as claimed in the return.” Grounds of appeal in ITA No.4871/Del/2017 (Department’s Appeal

Sh. Valmik Thapar, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

Appeals are disposed of by this common order as indicated above

ITA 5767/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jun 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice P.P. Bhatt & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Acit, 19, Kautilya Marg, Circle-53(1), New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Dcit, M/S. R. N. Khanna & Company, Ca, Circle-32(1), 14-15F, Shivam House, Connaught New Delhi Place, New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Shri Valmik Thapar, Circle-53(1), 19, Kautilya Marg, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Agarwal, Senior Advocate Along With Shri Shailesh Gupta, Shri Mahur Agarwal, Advocates Revenue By: Shri H. K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 11/06/2021 (Last Hearing) Date Of Pronouncement 11/06/2021. O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi, A. M. 1. These Are Three Appeals For Two Assessment Years Pertaining To One Assessee, Mr. Valmik Thapar, A Resident, Individual [Assessee]. Assessee Filed Ita Number

For Appellant: Shri Salil AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri H. K. Choudhary, CIT DR
Section 143Section 147Section 54Section 54E

24th of May 1990. Assessee treated the cost of acquisition of assets being fair Market value as on 1 April 1981 and indexed cost of acquisition of ₹ 48,727,200 which based on the valuation report of the property as at 1/4/1981 at ₹ 7,710,000. Assessee further claimed indexation ... further stated that in the revised computation submitted by the assessee there are other issue of indexed cost of acquisition as well as the claim of deduction u/s 54 and Section 54EC of the Act. He also rejected the contention of the assessee that the capital gain should have been

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Valmik Thapar, New Delhi

Appeals are disposed of by this common order as indicated above

ITA 6726/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jun 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice P.P. Bhatt & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Acit, 19, Kautilya Marg, Circle-53(1), New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Dcit, M/S. R. N. Khanna & Company, Ca, Circle-32(1), 14-15F, Shivam House, Connaught New Delhi Place, New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Shri Valmik Thapar, Circle-53(1), 19, Kautilya Marg, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Agarwal, Senior Advocate Along With Shri Shailesh Gupta, Shri Mahur Agarwal, Advocates Revenue By: Shri H. K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 11/06/2021 (Last Hearing) Date Of Pronouncement 11/06/2021. O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi, A. M. 1. These Are Three Appeals For Two Assessment Years Pertaining To One Assessee, Mr. Valmik Thapar, A Resident, Individual [Assessee]. Assessee Filed Ita Number

For Appellant: Shri Salil AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri H. K. Choudhary, CIT DR
Section 143Section 147Section 54Section 54E

24th of May 1990. Assessee treated the cost of acquisition of assets being fair Market value as on 1 April 1981 and indexed cost of acquisition of ₹ 48,727,200 which based on the valuation report of the property as at 1/4/1981 at ₹ 7,710,000. Assessee further claimed indexation ... further stated that in the revised computation submitted by the assessee there are other issue of indexed cost of acquisition as well as the claim of deduction u/s 54 and Section 54EC of the Act. He also rejected the contention of the assessee that the capital gain should have been

Shri Valmik Thapar, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

Appeals are disposed of by this common order as indicated above

ITA 6346/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jun 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice P.P. Bhatt & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Acit, 19, Kautilya Marg, Circle-53(1), New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Dcit, M/S. R. N. Khanna & Company, Ca, Circle-32(1), 14-15F, Shivam House, Connaught New Delhi Place, New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Shri Valmik Thapar, Circle-53(1), 19, Kautilya Marg, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Agarwal, Senior Advocate Along With Shri Shailesh Gupta, Shri Mahur Agarwal, Advocates Revenue By: Shri H. K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 11/06/2021 (Last Hearing) Date Of Pronouncement 11/06/2021. O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi, A. M. 1. These Are Three Appeals For Two Assessment Years Pertaining To One Assessee, Mr. Valmik Thapar, A Resident, Individual [Assessee]. Assessee Filed Ita Number

For Appellant: Shri Salil AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri H. K. Choudhary, CIT DR
Section 143Section 147Section 54Section 54E

24th of May 1990. Assessee treated the cost of acquisition of assets being fair Market value as on 1 April 1981 and indexed cost of acquisition of ₹ 48,727,200 which based on the valuation report of the property as at 1/4/1981 at ₹ 7,710,000. Assessee further claimed indexation ... further stated that in the revised computation submitted by the assessee there are other issue of indexed cost of acquisition as well as the claim of deduction u/s 54 and Section 54EC of the Act. He also rejected the contention of the assessee that the capital gain should have been

Avtar Singh Dheeran, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 66(5), New Delhi

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

ITA 403/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jun 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2014-15 Avtar Singh Dheeran, Vs Ito, C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, Ward-66(5), G-26/124, Sector-7, New Delhi. Rohini, New Delhi. Pan: Aaipd8887G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kapil Goel, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Rajesh Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 20.04.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.06.2021 Order

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Sr. DR

transfer and claimed capital loss of Rs.18,71,700/-. He noted that the assessee has claimed this capital loss by deducting the indexed cost of acquisition of the property at Rs.90,71,000/- based on a valuation report dated 25th August, 2014 wherein he has claimed the construction cost ... covered under the expenses on transfer. The AO also proposed the total long-term capital gain of Rs.40,93,635/- after deducting the indexed cost of acquisition at Rs.42,56,364/- from the sale consideration of Rs.83,50,000/-. 3.2 In response to the above, the assessee filed the following

Shri Krishna Mohan Chuorsiya, Rajgarh vs. The Pr. CIT Ujjain, Ujjain

ITA 626/IND/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 May 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Mis Madhumita Royassessment Year:2014-15 Shri Krishna Mohan Pr. Cit Choursiya(Prop. Of M/S Laxmi Ujjain Mp बनाम/ Auto Parts) Vs. Ward No.14, Bus Stand, Kurawar Rajgarh(M.P.) (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aempc3634G

Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

assessment order wherein Ld. AO has dealt with the issue of sale consideration of Rs.91 lacs in detail and after giving benefit of Indexed cost of acquisition has made an addition of Rs.88,78,365/-. On the strength of these facts it was contended that complete enquiry was made ... thus falls under the definition of capital asset and gain from sale thereof in subject to long term capital gain. Benefit of indexed cost of acquisition was Krishna Mohan Choursiya given to assessee at Rs.2,21,635/- and the remaining sum of Rs.8878365/- was added to the income of assessee

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. K.S. Chawla & Songs (HUF), New Delhi

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2724/DEL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 May 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kamble(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Arora, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Thakur, Sr.DR
Section 132Section 147Section 153CSection 154Section 50CSection 55ASection 69A

sale consideration of Rs.77,50,000/-. The capital gain on this transfer had been declared in the Income Tax Return, after claiming indexed cost of acquisition at Rs.8,88,590/-. During the search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in the case of the buyers ... Kachnar Marg, DLF Gurgaon, Haryana to Mr. Abhinav Arora and Mrs. Ranju Arora at a total consideration of Rs.77,50,000/- having index cost of acquisition of Rs. 8,88,590/-. However, during the course of search at Dawat Group of Companies dated 15.10.2009, a valuation report marked

Govind Singh Grewal, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 61(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 3232/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Mar 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2013-14 Govind Singh Grewal, Vs Ito, 8-A, Panchsheel Marg, Ward-61(1), Chanakya Puri, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aghpg7795D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ved Jain, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Sanjiv Mahajan, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 27.01.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.03.2021 Order

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjiv Mahajan, Sr. DR
Section 2Section 54

gain amount and declared Rs.57,10,042/- as income for A.Y. 2014-15. However, while calculating the capital gain, the assessee has claimed indexed cost of acquisition and applied the cost inflation index of F.Y. 2007-08 for the entire amount of Rs.86,20,638/- deposited from 30th October ... share as sale consideration of Rs. 1,25,00,000/- and also claimed expenditure on transfer Rs. 1,25,000/-. 2 As per index cost of acquisition you have claimed the indexation of Rs. 1,33,29,917/- and your share in the same comes

Kiran Kumar HUF, Rewari vs. ITO, Ward- 1, Rewari

Accordingly, Ground Nos. 1 to 1.3 taken together are allowed

ITA 3934/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Mar 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Kuldip Singh(Through Video Conference)

For Appellant: Shri Lalit Mohan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Senior DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(14)Section 234BSection 45Section 54F

both in law and on facts in confirming the incorrect computation of 3 ITA No.3934/Del./2017 long term capital gain by restricting the indexed cost of acquisition to Rs.1,25,892/- as against claimed indexed cost of acquisition of Rs.1,39,68,698/- and thus even otherwise the addition sustained ... total cost of acquisition of the land i.e. 11 canal 3 marla (223 marla) was determined at Rs.21,631/- and the indexed cost of acquisition of land in question was determined at Rs.1,25,892/- (21,631 * 582/100 = 1,25,892) and the long term capital gain was calculated

Ashok Kumar, Ghaziabad vs. ITO Ward - 24(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1160/DEL/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Feb 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Anil Chaturvedi

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, Sr. D.R
Section 139(5)Section 54

Shanti Vihar, Delhi. The assessee is claiming long term capital loss of Rs.52,01,327/- on sale of these properties after deducting indexed cost of acquisition, indexed cost of improvement expenses and claiming an exemption, details of which are summarised in the assessment order as under: 4 ITA.No.1160/Del./2020 ... Shri Ashok Kumar, Ghaziabad. 3.1. The A.O. in respect of property at 380 Ramnagar, Delhi, has taken indexed cost of acquisition at Rs.3,97,917/- and in respect of property at 80 Shanti Vihar, Delhi taken the indexed cost of acquisition at Rs.12,31,475/-. The assessee claimed transfer expenses