“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

DCIT Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Eris Lifesciences Limited Shivarth Ambit, Bodakdev Ahmedabad

Appeal are dismissed

ITA 848/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Vartik Choksi, ARFor Respondent: Shri R P Rastogi, CIT-DR & Shri Abhijit, Sr. DR

Section 115JSection 14ASection 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 43BSection 80

accordingly directed exclusion of ₹19,66,92,733 from book profit. On the assessee's further additional claim regarding reduction of indexed cost of acquisition in computation of MAT, the CIT(A) held that MAT computation under section 115JB must follow the Companies Act framework and Part II/III of Schedule ... rival contentions and perused the material on record. The issue for adjudication is whether the assessee is entitled to the benefit of indexed cost of acquisition while computing book profit under section 115JB of the Act in respect of long-term capital gains arising from transfer of capital assets

DCIT, Circle-2(1)(1) Ahmedabad, Ahmedabad vs. Eris Lifescience Limited Shivarth Ambit, Ahmedabad

In the result, for assessment year 2022-23, the appeal of the Department is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 847/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri R P Rastogi, CIT-DR & Shri Abhijit, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri R P Rastogi, CIT-DR & Shri Abhijit, Sr. DR

Section 14ASection 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 43BSection 80

accordingly directed exclusion of ₹19,66,92,733 from book profit. On the assessee’s further additional claim regarding reduction of indexed cost of acquisition in computation of MAT, the CIT(A) held that MAT computation under section 115JB must follow the Companies Act framework and Part II/III of Schedule ... rival contentions and perused the material on record. The issue for adjudication is whether the assessee is entitled to the benefit of indexed cost of acquisition while computing book profit under section 115JB of the Act in respect of long-term capital gains arising from transfer of capital assets

Navnath Mahadev Kunjir, Pune vs. ITO Ward 14(5) Pune, Pune

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

ITA 2083/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Sharad A. VazeFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Haladkar

Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144

basis of facts and in the circumstances of the case and as per law, the Assessing Officer be directed to allow the indexed cost of acquisition from sale value of Rs 4,50,000/- treated as income by the Assessing Officer. 11. Without prejudice to Ground ... chargeable to tax under the head capital gains and not an income under the head business /profession after allowing the indexed cost of acquisition from sale value of Rs 19,20,000/-. 15. Without prejudice to Ground No 1 to 5 and 14 above, on the basis of facts

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Kct Papers Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, grounds raised by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 3380/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Dec 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmaacit, Circle 5 (1) Vs. M/S. Kct Papers Limited, New Delhi. Thapar House, 124, Janpath, New Delhi – 110 001. (Pan : Aacck4937D) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rohit Jain, Advocate Shri Deepesh Jain, Advocate Shri Tavish Verma, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Kailash Dan Ratnoo, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 10.09.2025 Date Of Order : 05.12.2025 O R D E R Per S.Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-Viii, New Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Cit (A)] Dated 21.03.2014For Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are, The Assessee Company Belongs To The Thapar Group Established By Late Lala Karam Chand Thapar. There Was A Family Settlement Between The Various Constituents Of The Karam Chand Thapar Family As A Result Of Which Revenue-Organization/Restructuring Of The Group Dated 27Th April, 2001. The Re April, 2001. The Re-Organization Of The Group Companies & Trusts Organization Of The Group Companies & Trusts Was Made Into Four Groups, As Under, Each Headed By The Sons Of Late Lala Was Made Into Four Groups, As Under, Each Headed By The Sons Of Late Lala Was Made Into Four Groups, As Under, Each Headed By The Sons Of Late Lala K.C. Thapar. The Family Tree Of Karam Chand T K.C. Thapar. The Family Tree Of Karam Chand Thapar Family Is Explained As Hapar Family Is Explained As Under In The Form Of A Diagrammatic Chart: Under In The Form Of A Diagrammatic Chart:

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kailash Dan Ratnoo, CIT DR

Section 391

total consideration of Rs.20,78,62,944/-. Thus, the assessee's 1I4th share of consideration was Rs.5,19,65,736/-. Indexed cost of acquisition of such rights was Rs.1,83,39,832/-. Accordingly, assessee has offered Rs. 3,36,25,904/- being its 1/4th share of Long term capital gains ... shares as on 1.04.1981 in respect of the shares acquired on or before the said date. The assessee has accordingly adopted the indexed cost of acquisition of such shares. 9. On the other hand, assessing officer has taken cost of acquisition of shares as cost to the previous owner

Shri Ikbalbhai Jumabhai Khirani, Rajkot vs. The ITO Ward-1 (2) (1), Rajkot

ITA 843/RJT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot04 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

For Appellant: Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Dheeraj Kumar Gupta, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 234ASection 250Section 270ASection 44A

principle of natural justice, considered the cost of purchase of original property at Rs. 10/- in FY 2014-15 and calculated the indexed cost of acquisition of the property at Rs. 12/- and arrived at net capital gain income

Jaya Rinkubhai Bandukwala, Surat vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(3)(1) Surat, Surat

ITA 452/SRT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat03 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.451 & 452/Srt/2025

Section 250Section 272A(1)(d)

property was only 1/6th. b. The capital gains was long term in nature. c. The appellant ought to have been granted indexed cost of acquisition. (III) Miscellaneous: (1) All the above grounds and sub grounds are prejudiced to one another. (2) The appellant craves leave to add, alter or vary ... also the co-owner of the property, assessment was finalized after considering her share of 7.14% in the sale of property and deducting indexed cost of acquisition. The appellant submitted that the additional evidence being germane and relevant to the matter in hand may be admitted under Rule

Jaya Rinkubhai Bandukwala, Surat vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(3)(1) Surat, Surat

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 451/SRT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat03 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.451 & 452/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Hybrid Hearing) Jaya Rinkubhai Bandukwala Income Tax Officer, बनाम/ 1/611,Dhatigara Street, Ward -3(3)(1), Surat-395 001 Vs. Timaliyawad, Manpura, Surat-395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Bbfpb 1989 N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent)

Section 250Section 272A(1)(d)

Kirit Babubhai Jhaveri, Surat vs. ACIT, Circle-2(2), Surat

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes, subject to the of cost of Rs

ITA 52/SRT/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat03 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.52/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2015-16 (Hybrid Hearing) Kirit Babubhai Jhaveri, Vs. Acit, 22, Zaveri Bungalow, Opp – Circle – 2(2), Meghna Park, City Light Road, Surat Surat – 395007 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aabpz4942P (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 54Section 54B

assessee are as under: Date of sale of property 04.07.2014 Assessee’s share in total sale Rs.1,64,77,050/- consideration Less: Indexed cost of acquisition Rs.31,96,897/- claimed Cost of improvement claimed Rs.3,55,200/- Exemption claimed Rs.1,13,14,829/- Capital gain shown in ROI Rs.16 ... No.52/SRT/2024/AY 2015-16 Kirit Babubhai Jhaveri 8. The AO further noticed that the assessee submitted the copy of valuation report, therefore, indexed cost of acquisition was allowed to the assessee of Rs.31,96,897/-. However, the assessee did not furnish any bills or vouchers for availing the benefit of cost

Zulekha Haji Attarwala, Mumbai vs. ITO 20(2)(1), Lalbaug

In the result, the grounds of appeal and the appeal filed by the

ITA 4978/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C. V. Bhadang & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary, (Sr. DR)

Section 143(3)Section 2(14)Section 234Section 270ASection 54Section 56(2)(x)

sale consideration at Rs.3,50,00,000/-. On perusal of the computation of LTCG, it was seen that the assessee had claimed the indexed cost of acquisition at Rs.66,57,485/- and indexed cost of improvement at Rs.59,89,652/- in respect of the property sold during the year resulting

Nimmi Ramanathan, Rest House Crescent Road, Bangalore vs. Circle Int Tax 1(1)(1), Delhi

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

ITA 4004/DEL/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Lakhawat, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 154

year under consideration, the assessee sold an immovable property for a consideration of %2,69,00,000/-. The assessee after claiming deduction towards indexed cost of acquisition at %2,75,86,932/- claimed long-term capital loss of %6,86,932/- to be carried forward to subsequent years. The return ... rectification application once on 21.10.2024 and again on 02.12.2024 before the Id CPC. The Id CPC passed an order declining the benefit of indexed cost of acquisition. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us. 4. The Id CIT(A) agreed with action of the Id CPC by observing that

Gireesh Chandra, Etah vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward 3(1), Etah

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 264/AGR/2025[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Agra26 Nov 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2011-12

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 250Section 54F

learned Assessing Officer has erred in law and on facts in making Impugned addition of Rs. 4,19,711/- as wrongly disallowed indexed cost of acquisition as claimed by the appellant. 9. That the learned Assessing Officer has erred in law and on facts in wrongly calculating the cost

S. Lingamoorthy, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-3(4), Chennai

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

ITA 1925/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1925/Chny/2025 िनधा8रण वष8 /Assessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri D. Rajasekaran, ITPFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT

Section 147Section 148Section 149(1)(b)Section 48

Capital Gain (LTCG) arising from the transfer of property for a sale consideration of Rs. 36 lakhs, after claiming deduction u/s. 48 towards indexed cost of acquisition of Rs. 6,86,683/-. The assessee challenged the reopening before the A.O on the ground that the assessment being reopened is beyond

Poonam Dhananjay Sandu, Navi Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Navi Mumbai

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

ITA 2050/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, () & Shri Girish Agrawal, ()

Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 250Section 270A(3)Section 270A(9)Section 54

Paper Book) As per the provisions of the Explanation to Section 48(iii), the Indexed Cost of Acquisition has been rightly computed by applying the Cost Inflation Index (CII) of 264 for AY 2020-21, resulting in an Indexed Cost of ₹1,02,80,160 (i.e., ₹38,94,000 × 289/100 ... treating the cost of acquisition as Nil is contrary to law and settled judicial precedents. The Appellant respectfully submits that the Indexed Cost of Acquisition of 1,02,80,160 must be allowed while computing the capital gains. Ground No. 3: Creditworthiness of the Assessee Facts of the Case

Mohd Ubaid Ansari, Allahabad vs. ITO, Allahabad

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

ITA 62/ALLD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad21 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2015-16 Mohd Ubaid Ansari V. The Income Tax Department 337, Sultanpur Bhawa (Faceless) Noorulla Road Khuldabad Allahabad (U.P) Tan/Pan:Bajpa0699B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Shri A. K. Singh, D.R. O R D E R

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Singh, D.R

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 149Section 69A

residential immovable property bearing No.BP- 786/23C at Kareli Mohalla, Allahabad on 09.05.2014 for a consideration of Rs.9.00 lakhs. The assessee had mentioned the indexed cost of acquisition of the property in the computation of income at Rs.92,751/-. To verify the indexed cost, the AO issued notice under section

Ram Niranjan Banka, Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T., Circle - 40, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 752/KOL/2025[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Nov 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Ram Niranjan Banka Acit, Circle-40 1, Surti Bagan Street, Jorasanko, 3, Govt. Place (West), Vs. Kolkata-700073, West Bengal Kolkata-700001, West Bengal (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aedpb5273P Assessee By : Shri Manish Tiwari, Ar Revenue By : Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, Dr Date Of Hearing: 14.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.11.2025

For Appellant: Shri Manish Tiwari, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, DR

Section 54(1)(ii)

Construction of Owner’s allocation (differencedue to area set apart for Original Lessor) 8,06,89,673 8,23,07,104 Deduct: Indexed Cost of Acquisition proportionate to developer’s allocation 2,81,04,250 2,81,04,250 Deduct: cost of construction paid to Developer for area set apart ... Long Term Capital Short term Capital gain Gain Consideration (as per Stamp duty value) 5,51,24,940 5,51,24,940 Deduct: Indexed cost of acquisition Proportionate to 1st Floor area 74,19,522 74,19,522 Deduct: Proportionate cost of construction (difference due to area set apart

Chandra Panneerselvam, Vellore vs. PCIT., Chennai

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

ITA 91/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.91/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2015-16 Chandra Pannerselvam, Principal Commissioner Of Income No.2/2, Old Munsif Court Street, Tax, Saidapet, Vellure, Circle-1, Tamil Nadu - 632 012. Vellore. [Pan: Aahpp9253B] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Mr.N.Arjun Raj, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Mr.Bipin C.N, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16.10.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.11.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

For Appellant: Mr.N.Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr.Bipin C.N, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 263

Ld.PCIT made following observations on page 2 of his order. “…3. In the computation of LTCG, the assessee reduced the indexed cost of acquisition of the land of Rs. 6,70,273/- from the total sale consideration of plots (of Rs. 1,69,15,900/-) and arrived at LTCG

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Bellary vs. M/S Virgo Properties Private Limited, Chennai

ITA 1181/BANG/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri.Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

Year 2012-13, the assessee admitted and offered Long Term Capital Gain to the tune of Rs.6,48,41,697/- after considering the Indexed Cost of Acquisition for Rs.13,87,62,210/- and Indexed Cost of Improvement for Rs.2,58,85,277/- in Financial Year 2011-12 and in Financial ... Date of purchase of land cost of acquisition 8,45,28,050 13,87,62,810 Indexed cost of acquisition 852 / 519 2,69,16,693 Cost of improvement 2,58,85,277 F.Y.2011-12 Rs.2,38,49,698/- X 10,31,416 852/785 F.Y.2012-13-Rs.10,31,416/- Nil Long Term Capital

Rajesh Velji Rathod, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 3(2), Mumbai

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed in the said terms

ITA 4620/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2011-12 Mr. Rajesh Velji Rathod, Ito Ward – 3(2), Datta Plus Computer, 2Nd Floor, Rani Mansion, Mahavir Shopping Centre, Vs. Murbad Road, Kalyan Kalyan (West) Maharashtra – 421 301 Maharashtra -421 301 Pan: Adkpr2430A (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Ajay R Singh, Ld. A.R Revenue By : Shri Nakul Agrawal, Ld. Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 09.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.11.2025 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 06.06.2025, Impugned Herein, Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Addl/Jcit(A) (In Short Ld. Commissioner) U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For The A.Y. 2011-12. 2. Brief Facts Relevant For Adjudication Of The Instant Appeal Are That In The Instant Case, One Land/Property Was Sold Jointly By Various Sellers Including Assessee Herein Vide Sale Deed Dated 26.04.2010 On A Total Consideration Of Rs.2,19,00,000/- In Favour Of M/S. Priyanka Home Realties Pvt. Ltd., Whereas Market Value Of The Property Was Rs.2,79,68,500/- As Per Stamp Duty Valuation Authority. Though The Assessee Has Filed Its Return Of Income, However, According To The Assessing Officer (Ao) Did Not Disclose This Transaction In The Itr & Therefore The Ao Asked The Assessee To Explain “As To Why The Long Term Capital Gain (Ltcg) From Sale Of Land Has Not Been Offered To Tax”.

For Appellant: Shri Ajay R Singh, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Nakul Agrawal, Ld. Sr. D.R

Section 250Section 54F

Mtrs. (1,29,990 *10.16%) [Valuation report and as per AO] FMV as on 01/04/1981 Rs.2,31,123/-(13,207*17.50) Note3: Indexed Cost of Acquisition Indexed cost (Rs.2,31,123*711/100) = Rs. 16,43,285/- Note 4: ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………. Note - 5: ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………. 5 Mr. Rajesh Velji Rathod Note - 6: F. Y. COST

Kusum Sahgal, Gurugram vs. ACIT, Circle-19(2), Delhi

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

ITA 341/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2016-17 Kusum Sahgal, Through Lr Shri Vs. Acit, Circle-19(2), Viney Sagar Sahgal, New Delhi Mg-2002, The Magnolias, Golf Course Road Dlf Phase-V, Gurugram, 122 002 Haryana Pan :Aatps3766J (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 54BSection 54ESection 54F

received full value of consideration with respect to transfer of shares aggregating to Rs.118,22,67,206/- and claimed deduction on account of indexed cost of acquisition for Rs.36,70,555/- and "Expenditure wholly and exclusively in connection with transfer" for Rs.44,10,636/-. The assessee further claimed deductions

Rupal Devang Naik, Na vs. Arivs.ITO, Ward-4, Navsari

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical

ITA 1058/SRT/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat20 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Buayananda Prusethaie Vardiet F./Ita No.1058/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2012-13)

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 48Section 50C

facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned Assessing Officer has failed to account for the indexed cost of acquisition while calculating the income from long-term capital gains, which is erroneous in law and fact. 6. That the order ... calculation of LTCG was taken at Rs.11,76,020/-. In absence of any submission furnished by the assessee viz., purchase deed, etc., the indexed cost of acquisition was taken as ‘Nil’ and the capital gains were worked out at Rs.11,76,020/- and added to the total income