“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

Vishal Gift Centre - LLP, Indore vs. ACIT Central Circle - 1, Indore

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 347/IND/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 54B

cost of acquisition for the purpose of determination of the amount of capital gain chargeable to tax during the year under consideration. The indexed cost of acquisition of land comes to Rs.91,00,000 for the FY 2013-14 (AY 2014-15) which is as under: Fair market value ... gain - Rs. 68,90,4154 Cost inflation index for the FY 2010-11 - 711 Cost inflation index for the FY 2013-14 - 939 Indexed cost of acquisition - Rs. 91,00,000~ (Rs.68,90,4154 x 939/711) Sale consideration - Rs. 91,00,000~ Thus, effectively there shall be no capital gain

Gajiben Mahotji Thakor, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3)(8), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 324/AHD/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member), SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Shah, Advocate & ShriFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit, Sr.DR

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 45

plea of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee before us was that the present assessee should also be given the benefit of indexed cost of acquisition while computing capital gains. However, we may add that no evidence with regard to the cost incurred by the assessee for acquiring the impugned ... many years. Ld. Counsel for the assessee except for pleading that the other co-owners had also been given the benefit of indexed cost of acquisition has nothing else to say. Considering all of the above, we are of the view that the assessee has not made out any case

Indrajeet Suresh Magar, Kolhapur vs. Income Tax Officer, Kolhapur

ITA 755/PUN/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Oct 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.755/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Indrajeet Suresh Magar, Ito, Ward-2(1), Kolhapur. 100, Saroj Niwas, Ruikar Vs. Colony, Kolhapur- 416003. Pan : Aiapm7745G अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""थ" / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Farrukh Mohammad Munir Mulla Department By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 30-09-2025 Date Of 29-10-2025 Pronouncement : आदेश / Order Per Astha Chandra, Jm : The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 26.07.2024 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi [“Cit(A)”] Pertaining To Assessment Year (“Ay”) 2018-19. 2. There Is Delay Of 172 Days In Filing Of The Present Appeal. We Are Satisfied With The Reasons Mentioned In The Application For Condonation That The Assessee Was Prevented By Sufficient Cause For Not Filing The Appeal Within The Prescribed Time Limit. After Hearing Both The Sides, We Condone The Delay Of 172 Days & Proceed To Adjudicate The Appeal. 3. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. Incorrect Assessment Year: The Sale Of The Property On 12.04.2018 Should Be Taxable In Ay 2019-20, But It Has Been Incorrectly Assessed In Ay 2018- 19 By The Assessing Officer. 2. Proportional Taxation: The Assessee'S Ownership Is Only 50% & Hence The Capital Gain Should Be Taxed Proportionately. The Assessing Officer Has Failed To Account For This.

For Appellant: Shri Farrukh MohammadFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 147Section 148A

should be taxed proportionately. The Assessing Officer has failed to account for this. 2 ITA No.755/PUN/2025, AY 2018-19 3. Indexed Costs: The indexed cost of acquisition and improvement should be allowed as deductions. The Assessing Officer has not correctly calculated these indexed costs The purchase price of the property ... indexed cost of improvement should be allowed as a deduction. Total Deduction Particulars Cost of Year Index Indexed Cost of Acquisition/ Acquisition/Improve Improvement ment F.Y. 2019-20 Cost of Flat 36,05,500/- 2011-12 184 54,86,630/- Stamp Duty

Sonali Mahendra Naik Gaunekar, Panaji vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(1), Panaji

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 313/PAN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji28 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Mr Rahul Sarda [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Renga Rajan [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 253(1)Section 263Section 50C

justice and the addition sustained by the NFAC is liable to be deleted. 2. ⁠The NFAC erred in confirming the addition/ disallowance of indexed cost of acquisition made by the AO on the ground of alleged failure to furnish requisite documentary evidences either before the AO or during the appeal ... that in the impugned proceedings the appellant assessee failed to furnish requisite documentary evidences in support of her claim for cost of acquisition, indexed cost of acquisition, cost of construction & improved cost etc. incurred in relation to impugned transaction. ITAT-Panaji Page 7 of 13 Sonali Mahendra Naik Gaunekar

Ram Ji Lal Meena, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Holding Additional Charge of ITO, Ward 6(1), Jaipur

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

ITA 419/JPR/2025[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Oct 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 151Section 50CSection 56(2)(vii)

noted that the AO adopted stamp duty value as sales consideration following provisions of Section 50C at Rs.53,11,367/- and after allowing indexed cost of acquisition, calculated long term capital gain at Rs.41,8,805/-. In this case, it is noted that the assessee had filed appeal before ITAT

Ram Khilari Meena, Dausa vs. ITO, Dausa

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1292/JPR/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Mukesh Khandelwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl. CIT

Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 44A

show-cause notice. In view of the above, the AO reworked out the capital gains and income was computed without giving credit for indexed cost of acquisition. Further, the AO took no adverse view on the issue of cash deposits. 7. Ground of Appeal No. 1: The appellant has taken

Satyam Transformers Private Limited, Aurangabad vs. ITO Ward 2(3), Aurangabad

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

ITA 1239/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1239/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Satyam Transformers Private Limited, Ito, Ward-2(3), Sharadanand, Opposite Telephone Office, Aurangabad Ajabnagar, Aurangabad-431001 Vs. Pan : Aakcs4648D अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Shubham N. Rathi Department By : Shri Akhilesh Srivastva Date Of Hearing : 04-08-2025 Date Of 27-10-2025 Pronouncement : आदेश / Order

For Appellant: Shri Shubham N. RathiFor Respondent: Shri Akhilesh Srivastva

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 72

deleted. 3. NOT ALLOWING THE INDEX COST AGAINST THE SALE CONSIDERATION 3.1 The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of indexed cost of acquisition. 3.2 While doing so the Ld. AO failed to appreciate the facts of the case and which resulted in disallowance of indexed cost ... acquisition. 3.3 In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the disallowance of index cost of acquisition is bad in law and therefore deserves to be allowed.” 6. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee’s application under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 (“DTVSV

Income Tax Officer-41(2)(4), Mumbai, Bkc vs. Rbi Employees Bhagvati Coop Housing Society Ltd, Mulund East, Mumbai

ITA 4073/MUM/2025[2011]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2025

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Fenil BhattFor Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kosuri

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(47)(v)Section 271(1)(c)Section 48Section 50CSection 53A

property with Fair Market Value as on April 1, 1981 as provided under section 48 read with section 55 of the Act granting indexed cost of acquisition thereon. 6. The Cross Objector prays that the Ld. AO be directed to treat the transfer of immovable property as long term capital ... Fair Market Value of the immovable property as on April 1, 1981 as the Cost of acquisition of immovable property and allow indexed cost of acquisition on the same.” 17. Since we have dismissed the appeal preferred by the Revenue, the Cross objection filed by the Assessee are dismissed

Income Tax Officer-41(2)(4), Mumbai, Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc vs. Rbi Employees Bhagvati Co-Op Housing Society Ltd., Mulund East, Mumbai

ITA 3595/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Fenil BhattFor Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kosuri

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(47)(v)Section 271(1)(c)Section 48Section 50CSection 53A

ITO 19.2.4, Mumbai vs. Nishita Vijay Mehta, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2989/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Shri. Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. Ar

Section 250Section 50ESection 54ESection 54F

Sale Consideration: Rs. 5,85,88,236 Less: Legal expenses: Rs. 5,10,815 Net Consideration recd.: Rs. 5,80,77,423 Less: Indexed Cost of Acquisition: Rs. 75,18,758 (6,68,334 1125/100) as on 01-04 1981) Long Term Capital Gain: Rs. 5,05,58,665 Less

Nishita Vijay Mehta, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 19(2)4, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1787/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Shri. Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. Ar

Section 250Section 50ESection 54ESection 54F

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Tirupati vs. Venkata Swamy Ravuri, Chittoor

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for

ITA 257/HYD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice- & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Advocate Sashank Dundu

Section 143(3)Section 2Section 68

sale of land is computed as under: = fos consideration Rs.2,40,00,000/- Cost of acquisition for 2399.51 Rs.1,06,557/- sq yards Indexed cost of acquisition Rs.1,06,557/- * 1125/223 Rs. 5,37,563/- Long Term Capital gains on! IRs.2,34,62,437/- sale of land Accordingly, an amount ... Cost in Rs. | 1994-95 5,80,600/- 1995-96 12,78,650/- 1997-98 16,69,920/- | The appellant contends that the index cost of acquisition shall also be joined with index cost of improvement to determine the Long Term Capital Gain. The Balance Sheet of the assessee

Kiran Yadav, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 853/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri K.L. Moolchandani-ARFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR

Capital Gain in the hands of the assessee with following calculation. Value as land as per stamp duty Valuation 19,31,391/- Less: Indexed cost of acquisition of land 1,01,200/551*1125 2,06,624/- Long Term capital gain 17,24,767/- In first appeal

Bhavanaben Pravinchandrabhai Patel, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 1(3)(6), Surat

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

ITA 71/SRT/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat15 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.71/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) Bhavnaben Pravinchandrabhai Income Tax Officer, बनाम/ Patel Ward-1(3)(6), Surat, 303, Vs. 16D/183/6 Shiv Shaki Bhavan, Income Tax Office, Anavil Opp. Rupli Chinema, Ram Business Centre, Adajan, Surat- Nagar, Rander Road, Surat-395 395 007 005 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Bgfpp 0968 N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

addition on account of LTCG that worked out by the AO by taking 50C value and that too without allowing deduction for Indexed Cost of Acquisition as on 01.04.2001." 3. Vide application dated 25.04.2025, the appellant has raised additional ground, which is as follows: “Ld. AO has erred

Harshadkumar Hargovandas Patel, Kalol vs. The ITO, Ward-4, Mehsana

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

ITA 124/AHD/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Adv. & ShriFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit, Sr. D.R

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 148Section 55A

assessee had adopted the value of Rs. 72,84,500/- based on a registered valuer’s report and claimed an indexed cost of acquisition of Rs. 6,20,63,940/-. However, the Assessing Officer, being dissatisfied with the valuer’s report, obtained sale instances of similar nearby lands from

Ruby Rajendra P Tiwari, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 42(3)(2), Mumbai

Appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3546/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay ChaudharyFor Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kosuri

Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 192Section 45Section 69ASection 69C

bank account of Mr. Jayraj Kuttappan. Computation of Mr.Jayraj Kuttappan is enclosed. There is no capital gain on sale of property as the indexed cost of acquisition exceeded sale consideration. 3. The Ld. A.O. has erred in law and facts by making addition of Rs.55,00,000 under

ACIT Central Circle-7(4), Mumbai vs. Dev Sameer Shah, Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 6772/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 132Section 250Section 69A

under the head 'LTCG' in the computation of total income. The said gain was computed after claiming the deduction on account of indexed cost of acquisition of Rs. 5,78,832/-. 4.7 Cash Gifts received from various persons: Out of the total seized cash of 'Rs.1.10 Crore, the assessee sought

Syed Nazim Moinuddin Quazi, Nagpur vs. ITO Ward 2(3), Nagpur

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

ITA 503/NAG/2025[2020 - 2021]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur10 Oct 2025

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalesayed Nazim Maoinuddin Quazi, Pltono.11–A & House Noquadri Enclave, Opp. Suri Laws Behind Police Line Takli ……………. Appellant Nagpur 440 013, Maharashtra. Pan–Aaapq2442A V/S Income Tax Officer ……………. Respondent Ward–2(3), Nagpur, Maharashtra. Assessee By:Ms.Alfiya Rozie, A.R. Revenue By :Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Ms.Alfiya Rozie, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)

addition of the entire sale consideration of Rs.36,00,000/- to the total income of the appellant without giving the benefit of indexed cost of acquisition to the appellant. 2 Sayed Nazim Maoinuddin Quazi 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the learned Assessing Officer was justified

Sh. Rajesh Narendrabhai Patel, Vadodara vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(2)(2), Vadodara

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

ITA 1592/AHD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2012-13 Shri Rajesh Narendrabhai Patel Ito, Ward-1(2)(2) Baroda Bolt & Engineering Works Vadodara. Opp: Lalbaug Atitigruh Pratapnagar Vadodara Pan : Acqpp 6089 C (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : None : Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06/10/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/10/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

For Appellant: None

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 50C(2)Section 54Section 80C

income of Rs.15,24,000/-, which included income from house property at Rs.15,54,000/- and showing capital gains at NIL after claiming indexed cost of acquisition. 2.2 During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee had sold immovable property situated at Kasba ... 2895/1/A, Manjalpur, Vadodara, for a declared sale consideration of Rs.90,00,000/-. 2.3 Against this, the assessee claimed indexed cost of acquisition aggregating to Rs.1,16,06,585/-, thereby declaring NIL capital gain. On verification of the sale deed, the AO observed that stamp duty of Rs.14

Maruti Nivrutti Bhujbal, Pune vs. ITO, Ward 14(1), Pune

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

ITA 485/PUN/2025[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Oct 2025AY 2004-05

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Tripathi

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 50C

appellant prior to 01.04.1981, its value as on 01.04.1981 was required to be considered as the cost of acquisition for calculating the indexed cost of acquisition as on the date of transfer. Since no material on this issue was provided by the appellant, the assessing officer observed that regular assessment