“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

Usha Sharma, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

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

ITA 320/JPR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Mrs. Suhani Meharwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 14ySection 234ASection 234B

declared loss from the Capital Gain of Rs.(-)1,22,327/- claiming (1) Transfer expenses of Rs.1,11,000/- (2) Indexed cost of acquisition of Rs.16,11,327/-. Accordingly, another notice u/s 142(1) of the Act was issued to the assessee on 5-10-2019 requiring him to furnish ... copy of 5 SMT USHA SHARMA VS ITO, WARD 2(4), JAIPUR receipt. The AO after considering the same allowed the indexed cost of acquisition at Rs.9,08,098/- as claimed by the assessee and thus computed the long term capital gain of Rs.7,19,320/- in the hands

Ashwani Kumra, Chandigarh vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Chandigarh

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 718/CHANDI/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh07 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No. 718/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Shri Ashwani Kumra Acit-Ward 2(1) बनाम/ Sco 338, Motor Market Aaykar Bhawan, Sector-17 Vs. Manimajra – 160101 Chandigarh – 160017 "ायीलेखासं /. जीआइआरसं /. Pan/Gir No. Adppk-2516-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" /Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/Appellant By : Sh. Deepak Aggarwal (Advocate) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Vivek Vardhan (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 22-09-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 07/10/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2013- 14 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 15-05-2024 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S. 144 R.W.S. 147 Of The Act On 29-03-2022. The Sole Issue That Arises For Our Consideration Is Computation Of Capital Gains. Having Heard Rival Submissions & Upon Perusal Of Case Records, The Appeal Is Disposed-Off As Under. The Assessee Has Also Filed Written Submissions Which Have Duly Been Considered While Adjudicating The Appeal.

For Appellant: Sh. Deepak Aggarwal (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 144Section 148Section 263Section 54Section 54F

transpired that the assessee sold a plot of land situated at Panchkula on 19-03-2013 for Rs.58.81 Lacs. The assessee claimed indexed cost of acquisition from the year 2009 onwards for Rs.11.63 Lacs. On remaining Long Term CapitalGains (LTCG) of Rs.47.17 Lacs, the assessee claimed deduction

Baljit Singh Gambhir, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, International Taxation, Ward-2(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 912/MUM/2025[2019-20 ]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.912/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2019-20) Baljit Singh Gambhir V/S. Income Tax Officer, C/O Tejmohan Singh, बिधम International Taxation, Advocate 527, Sector Ward 2(3)(1), Mumbai 10-D, Chandigarh Income Tax Officer, 160011 International Taxation, Ward 2(3)(1), Mumbai 400076 स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Amgpg9637H Appellant/अपीलधथी .. Respondent/प्रनिवधदी निर्धाररिी की ओर से /Assessee By: Shri. Tejomohan Singh, Adv. रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Shri. Krishna Kumar (Sr Dr) सुिवधई की िधरीख / Date Of Hearing 29.07.2025 घोर्णध की िधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement 30.09.2025

For Appellant: Shri. Tejomohan Singh, AdvFor Respondent: Shri. Krishna Kumar (SR DR)

Section 144C(5)Section 148Section 148A

another for Rs. 2,65,00,000/- on 17.10.2018. on these transactions, LTCG was declared at Rs. 138,69,272 after reducing indexed cost of acquisition and indexed cost of improvement. After giving opportunity to the assessee to submit complete details alongwith supporting documentary evidences, which the assessee could ... subsequently allotted to the assessee in F.Y. 2006-07. Possession of the properties was taken by the assessee in F.Y. 2010. While the indexed cost of acquisition has been computed by the Ld. AO/ DRP from the date of possession, the assessee has claimed that the same needs

Nikhil Ravindra Manjrekar, Mumbai vs. ACIT-35(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5547/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 194Section 54

under section 54 was placed on record as follows: Sr Particulars Amount Rs No. 1. Sale Consideration 2,27,00,000/- 2. Less: Indexed cost of Acquisition 1,79,02,367 (CII of FY 2010-11:711 and CII of FY 2015- 16:1081) Original Cost

Ayyub Jafri, Lucknow vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax-6, Lucknow

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

ITA 177/LKW/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow26 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SH. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Kumar, DR

Section 143(3)Section 54FSection 80J

more than what had actually accrued on the sale of plots made from time to time. It was prayed that once indexed cost of acquisition was allowed to the assessee, the long-term capital gain would work out to only Rs. 1,36,18,978/- and against the same

Maimoon Fashion Accessories Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 7(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 5010/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhailmaimoon Fashion Accessories Pvt. Ltd., 645, Maimoon House, Mohili Village, A.K. Road, J.B. Nagar S.O., Mumbai – 400059 ............... Appellant Pan : Aaccm3307P

For Appellant: Ms. Rupal KakuFor Respondent: Shri Rajiv Kadam, Sr.DR

Section 2(47)Section 2(47)(ii)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 45

land 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO erred in computing the indexed cost of acquisition by applying Cost Inflation Index for the base year 2001 instead of 1981, which was applicable to AY 2016-17. Thus, this leads

Smt . Rajani Surendra Adamane, Nagpur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 6(1), Nagpur

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

ITA 103/NAG/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhrysmt. Rajani Surendra Ito, Ward-4(4), Nagpur Adamane, Plot No.30, Near Ghodke School Surendra Vs. Nagar, Hudkeshwar Road, Nagpur-440024. Pan: Alapa 9897 L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Bhavesh Moryani, Ld. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Ld. Sr.D.R

Section 250Section 50CSection 54(2)Section 54F

property at Rs. 53,52,000/- as per stamp duty valuation in view of section 50C of the Act and while deducting the indexed cost of acquisition of plot to the tune of Rs. 1,33,284/- and other expenses claimed to the tune

Subhlaxmi Gurunath Kamat, Sindhudurg vs. Income Tax Officer, Kudal

ITA 1795/PUN/2025[A.Y.2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Sept 2025

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.1795/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Subhlaxmi Gurunath Kamat, V The Income Tax Officer, 308, Kalasewadi, Banda S Ward-1, Kudal, S.O.(Sindhudurg), Banda, Sindhudurg. Sindhudurg – 416510. Pan: Cmwpk9642J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Pramod S Shingte Revenue By Shri Aviyogi Ambadkar– Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 10/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 25/09/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2018-19 Dated 06.05.2025 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 147 R.W.S 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 06.03.2023. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 48(1)Section 50C

said section. b. The Long Term Capital Gain ought to have been calculated after allowing deduction u/s 48(1) of the indexed cost of acquisition. The appellant prays that the A. O be directed accordingly The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, modify, delete or add a new ground

Pranoo Financial Services Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 13(1)(2), Mumbai

ITA 4580/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Joshi & Ms. Sruti KalyanikarFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra S. Mahajan

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 56(2)(viib)

Appellant was in continuous losses, ignoring the fact that the loss in the return of income was on account of claim of indexed cost of acquisition while computing the capital gains on sale of shares. 3.3. It is submitted that in the facts and the circumstances of the case

Yogesh Mutha, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 6(1), Jaipur, Ncrb, Statue Circle

The appeal is disposed of, for statistical purpose and the

ITA 536/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Learned Cit(A), While Challenging Assessment Order Dated 16.11.2019, Passed By The Assessing Officer, Relating To The Assessment Year 2017-18, As His Income For The Said

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav Awasthi, JCIT

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 54Section 54F

Nagar, Jaipur for Rs. 2,40,00,000/-, on 16.07.2016. Said residential plot was purchased by the assessee on 17.10.2012. The assessee claimed indexed cost of acquisition of Rs.84,01,569/-. As observed by the Assessing Officer said transaction led to long term capital gain of Rs.1

Vipendra Ravindra Mandal, Thane vs. Income Tax Officer- Ward 22(3)(6), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1819/MUM/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2016-17 Vipendra Ravindra Mandal, Ito Ward 22(3)(6), 405, Orchid Wing-F Lodha Crown, Piramal Chamber, Taloja Bypass Road, Kohni B.O. Vs. Mumbai-400012. Khoni, Thane-421204. Pan No. Alepm 8472 H Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. V.P. KothariFor Respondent: Mr. Bhagirath Ramawat, Sr. DR

Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)(A)Section 54

indexed cost of computing the said gains, the assessee reduced the indexed cost of computing the said gains, the assessee reduced the indexed cost of acquisition as well as the ind acquisition as well as the indexed cost of improvement from the sale exed cost of improvement from the sale

Bennett Coleman & Co Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 1(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 2169/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal & Shri Kshitij Kasi, A/RsFor Respondent: Shri Satyaprakash R. Singh, CIT D/R

Section 115JSection 14A

। आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण न्यायपीठ, मुंबई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, HON'BLE

Pradeep Kumar Rochwani, Jodhpur vs. Circle (Intl Tax), Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 567/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member), DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Jain, Adv. (throughFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT-DR a

Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 263

revenue as per provisions of section 263 of the IT Act, 1961 as the AO did not make proper enquiries in respect of indexation cost on acquisition of impugned flat claimed under the provisions of section 48 of the Act, 1961 amounting to Rs. 5,54,06,106/-. In this ... same are being reproduced as under :- “ 1. That at the time of hearing the ld Departmental Representative (CIT DR) had submitted that the indexed cost of acquisition claimed by the appellant is not accordance with provision of section 48 of the Act and also referred decision. In this regard

Income Tax Officer, Mumbai vs. Haresh Kumar Manjibhai Patel, Gujarat

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue fails and is dismissed in its entirety

ITA 3633/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

Section 10(38)Section 144Section 147Section 68Section 69C

shares. The assessee disposed of 54,000 shares in June 2015, and the remaining 6,85,000 shares—having an indexed cost of acquisition of ₹34,25,000/– were sold during the relevant year for an aggregate sale consideration of ₹3,16,08,941/–. All such sales were routed through

United Steel Allied Industries Pvt Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-8(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 908/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA, M Poorna Chander RaoFor Respondent: Sri Siva Prasad, SV, Sr. AR

Section 143(1)Section 270ASection 274

financial year 2008-2009, 1,49,70,000 shares and in financial year 2013-2014, 34,89,197 shares, but, while computing the indexed cost of acquisition for the purpose of computation of capital gain, it has considered entire lot of shares, as purchased in financial year

Orbis Real Estate Fund I, Hyderabad (Auth. Rep.) vs. ADIT (International Taxation)-2 - 2, Hyderabad

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

ITA 785/HYD/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Sept 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Sai Sourabh K, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. Narender Kumar Naik

Section 143(3)Section 154

DTAA and hence not taxable in India. 5.3 In their alternate argument, the Ld. AR submitted that, the Ld. AO also denied the indexed cost of acquisition u/s. 48 of the Act holding that the land was not directly held by the assessee. He further submitted that, even ... land, the land was a capital asset held through WEPL from FY 2006–07. Therefore, the assessee should ITA No.785/Hyd/2024 10 be granted indexed cost of acquisition u/s. 48 of the Act, treating the date of investment as the date of acquisition. 6. Per contra, the learned Departmental Representative

Giriraj Prasad, Kota vs. Income Tax Officer, Bundi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 603/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Vinok Kumar Gupta, C.AFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148wSection 263Section 54F

gain arising from this transaction. 1.2. Computation of Longterm capital gain: Sr. No. Particulars Amount (Rs.) A. Sales Consideration 57,00,000 B. Indexed Cost of Acquisition and 87,604 Improvement C. Long Term Capital Gain [A-B] 56,12,396 D. Exemption

South Kanara Agriculturists Co-Operative Marketing Society Ltd., Mangaluru vs. ACIT, Circle-1(1), Mangalore

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 525/BANG/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri A. Shiva Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri Muthu Shankar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143Section 50C

furnished by the assessee and therefore the learned assessing officer computed the capital gain considering the deemed sales consideration of ₹ 28.39 crores, granting indexed cost of acquisition as deduction of ₹ 5,887,530/-, computed the taxable capital gain of ₹ 278,012,470/-, and passed assessment order passed under section

Balbirsingh Balwantsingh Chhabra, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle -3(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 2295/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am) Balbirsingh Balwantsingh Dcit, Cc-3(1)(1) B-34, Nice, Midc Satpur Room No. 607 Nashik, Maharashtra Vs. Aayakar Bhavan Pincode No.- 422 007. M.K.Road Mumbai-400 020. Pan : Addpc7217K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Leyaqat Ali AafaquiFor Respondent: Shri Devendra Jain

Section 10Section 2(14)(c)

loss of Rs. 4 lakh (approximately). The appellant received an amount of Rs. 15,52,159/- on premature sunder of policy whereas the indexed cost of acquisition of the policy is Rs. 19,89,424/-. The exact total amount paid by appellant as insurance premium is not coming out from ... appellant has argued that since the ULIP is “capital asset”, and hence he is entitled for indexation benefit. The indexed cost of acquisition amount received being less than the premature surrendered amount of ULIP, there is a loss under the head of “Income from Capital Gains”. It was further argued

Manu Chaudhary, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward 6(1), Jaipur

ITA 768/JPR/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Aug 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM आयकरअपीलसं. / ITA No. 768/JPR/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष / AssessmentYear : 2009-10 Shri Manu Chaudhary 7-CHA-11, Jawahar Nagar Jaipur - 302 017 बनाम ITO Vs. Ward 6(1) Jaipur } प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent स्थायीलेखा सं. / जीआईआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: ADIPC 0353 R अपीलार्थी / Appellant निर्धारिती की ओरसे / Assesseeby : Shri Dheeraj Borad, CA राजस्व की ओरसे /Revenue by: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hear

For Appellant: Shri Dheeraj Borad, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR

JAIPUR AO. The AO shall verify the correctness of the documents. If the same is found in order, the benefit of indexed cost of acquisition would be granted to the appellant and the AO shall re-work out the long term capital gain" will be given. 3. That the action ... given by he himself to the AO in Para 6.4 of the same impugned order inter alia saying to allow the benefit of indexed cost of acquisition to the asseusee and re-work out the long term capital gain 5. That on the facts and in law the M. ADDL/ICIT