“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

Nagamma, Raichur vs. Income Tax Office-Ward 1, Raichur

ITA 549/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 54BSection 54FSection 54F(2)

house in Financial Year 2018-19 starting from January 2019 was not allowed under section 54F of the Act. The AO allowed index cost of acquisition of Rs.26,92,131/- and deduction under section 54B of the Act was allowed of Rs.16,01,435/-. Accordingly, long term capital gain

Dilip Mohandas Devani, Vadodara vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), Vadodara

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

ITA 272/AHD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Jigar Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajenkumar M Vasavda, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 50CSection 54

declaring total income of ₹1,690/- and claiming a long-term capital loss of ₹8,70,727/- after taking into account indexed cost of acquisition, cost of improvement, and after claiming exemption under section 54 of the Act. On verification of the assessee’s records, the Assessing Officer found that

DCIT, Central Circle-2, Jaipur vs. Kamlaprabha L/H of Late Shri Gopal Lal Ji Goswami, Kota

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the Cross objection of the assessee is disposed off in terms of the observation made herein above

ITA 94/JPR/2025[2014]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Aug 2025

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

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-Sr.DR a

Section 144Section 153C

Rs.0 as against that assessed by the Assessing 4 Officer at Rs.4,44,60,476, including Rs.4,30,51,976 on account of index cost of acquisition and Rs. 14,08,500 by making a disallowance of the index cost of improvement which relates to expenses incurred by the assessee ... disclosing the sale consideration as mentioned in the sale agreements but the assessee has taken the figure of indexed cost of acquisition at a very high figure. As on 01.04.1981, the assessee has taken cost of land admeasuring 1.31 hectares at 3,15,000 (i.e. 2,40,458 per hectare

Laggisetty Manohar Karthik, Chennai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward 15(2), Chennai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 746/CHNY/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 746/Chny/2025 िनधा$रण वष$ / Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT

Section 147Section 54Section 80C

hands of the assessee herein in the capacity of the individual. 9. The AO furthermore proposed to reject the claim of the indexed cost of acquisition computed by the assessee in as much the FMV of the property computed by the assessee as on 01.04.1981 was rejected in substituting ... Bombay High Court in the case of Commissioner of Incometax-12 v. Manjula J.Shah, reported in 355 ITR 474 in support of the indexed cost of acquisition as on 01.04.1981 in the computation of capital gains. 16. The Ld.CIT(A) vide appellate order dated 07.03.2025 had confirmed the assumption

Shri Alpesh Navinbhai Barot, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 927/AHD/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2015-16

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 54Section 54F

property by considering the entire sale consideration as capital gain. He explained that due to ignorance, the assessee did not claim deduction for indexed cost of acquisition of the property sold. Further, the land premium was paid for conversion of agricultural land into non-agricultural land and the deduction

Narayanan, Chromepet vs. Income Tax Officer, Chennai

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

ITA 695/CHNY/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Aug 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.695/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 Narayanan, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, F-1, 37/60, Guru Balaji Apts, International Taxation Ward 2(1), First Main Road, New Colony, Chennai. Chromepet, Chennai 600 044. [Pan:Ackpn6481A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : None ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 24.07.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 20.08.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 06.01.2025 Passed By The Income Tax Officer, International Taxation Ward 2(1), Chennai Under Section 147 R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. When The Appeal Was Taken Up For Hearing On 24.07.2025, We Find No Representation On Behalf Of The Assessee. However, We Find Paper

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144C(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69

property for ₹.65,00,000/- which has been reported twice. As per return of income furnished by the assessee, the assessee has claimed indexed cost of acquisition for ₹.80,31,968/- and expenditure of ₹.1,30,000/- on sale of this property. However, the assessee failed to substantiate his claim ... assessee before the DRP and during remand proceedings, the assessee explained the sources of remittances with documentary evidences. Further, the assessee has claimed indexed cost of acquisition for ₹.80,31,967/- and brokerage on sale of the property for ₹.1,30,000/-. However, as per the copy of Agreement

Archana Prashant Date, Pune vs. ITO, Ward 11(1), Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 190/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Ms.Astha Chandra

For Respondent: Appellant by Shri Sarang Gudhate

Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 250Section 48Section 50CSection 54

shall be Rs.10729000/-. Since the appellant has sold the flat and reinvested the same in purchase of a flat at Rs.7504825/-and the indexed cost of acquisition of the said sold plot as computed by the appellant is Rs.4144720/-, the appellant's capital gain shall be computed as (Rs.10729000 - Rs.4144720 ... taken the said value as against the sale consideration of Rs.60.00 lakh shown by the assessee. Thereafter, ld.CIT(A) has mentioned that the indexed cost of acquisition of the said flat/immovable property is Rs.41,44,720/-. After reducing the indexed cost of acquisition against the stamp duty valuation, the remaining

Binalben Pinkeshbhai Naik, Na vs. Arivs.ITO, Ward-1, Navsari

ITA 1061/SRT/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat18 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT

Dakshaben Ajitbhai Desai, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 2(3)(1), Surat

ITA 1060/SRT/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat18 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No. 1059/Srt/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: (2012-13) Anilbhai Desai 87, Brahman Faliya, Udhna Kharwasa Road, Dindoli, Surat – 394210 Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(3)(1), Surat स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Gcbpd0303J (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपीलसं./Ita No. 1060/Srt/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: (2012-13) Dakshaben Ajitbhai Desai Income Tax Officer, Ward 87, Brahman Faliyu, Dindoli, Choryasi. Surat – 394 210 Vs. 2(3)(1), Surat स्थायी लेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ayspd 0711F (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपीलसं./Ita No. 1061/Srt/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: (2012-13) Binalben Pinkeshbhai Naik Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward -1, 132/2 Zaveri Faliya, Kachhori Gandevi Navsari Navsari - 396445 स्थायी लेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aftpn 6207 L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Respondent By Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement : Shri Sapnesh R Sheth, Ca : Shri Ajay Uke, Ld. Sr. Dr : 05/08/2025 : 18/08/2025

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT

Anilbhai Desai, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 2(3)(1), Surat

ITA 1059/SRT/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat18 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No. 1059/Srt/2024 (निर्धारणवर्ष / Assessment Year: (2012-13) Anilbhai Desai Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward – 87, Brahman Faliya, Udhna Kharwasa Road, Dindoli, Surat – 394210 2(3)(1), Surat स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Gcbpd0303J (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपीलसं./Ita No. 1060/Srt/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: (2012-13) Dakshaben Ajitbhai Desai Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward – 87, Brahman Faliyu, 2(3)(1), Surat Dindoli, Choryasi. Surat – 394 210 स्थायी लेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ayspd 0711F (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपीलसं./Ita No. 1061/Srt/2024 (निर्धारणवर्ष / Assessment Year: (2012-13) Binalben Pinkeshbhai Naik Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward -1, 132/2 Zaveri Faliya, Kachhori Gandevi Navsari Navsari - 396445 स्थायी लेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aftpn 6207 L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Respondent By Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement : Shri Sapnesh R Sheth, Ca : Shri Ajay Uke, Ld. Sr. Dr : 05/08/2025 : 18/08/2025

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT

Venkatraman Jayashree Priyadharshini, Chennai vs. ACIT, Ncc-3, Chennai

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

ITA 64/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.64/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 Venkatraman Jayashree Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Priyadharshini, No. 8/5, Income Tax, Rajaji 1St Street, Lake Area, Non Corporate Circle 3(1), Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034. Chennai. [Pan:Adapj3317L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Y. Sridhar, F.C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita, Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 05.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18.08.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 26.03.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Assessee Raised 5 Grounds Of Appeal Amongst Which, The Only Issue Emanates For Our Consideration As To Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified In Giving Relief To The Extent Of ₹.88,85,000/- Under Section 54 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short]

For Appellant: Shri Y. Sridhar, F.C.AFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl.CIT

Section 54Section 54F

ITAT (Rs.) order (Rs.) Sale consideration 3,16,80,000 3,16,80,000 3,16,80,000 3,16,80,000 Less: indexed cost of acquisition 8,24,145 8,24,145 8,24,145 8,24,145 Less: Expenditure related

DCIT, Central Circle-2, Noida vs. Ajay Goel, Haryana

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1459/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Kanchan Kaushal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Tiwari, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 54F

sold shares for Rs.17,50,00,000/- and has shown Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) of Rs.15,95,71,381/-. After claiming indexation cost of acquisition, assessee also claimed deduction u/s 54F of the Act to the extent of Rs.3,68,14,462/- and in order to verify the same ... laid down in section 54F are not satisfied, the claim of the assessee was rejected and further the AO has also rejected the index cost of acquisition of Rs.1,54,28,619/- for not furnishing evidence in respect of the above as unexplained and disallowed. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal

Sakshi Sharma, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 6(1), Jaipur

ITA 682/JPR/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad

For Appellant: Shri Sharwan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250

issues on merits; and, thirdly, against the addition of Rs. 4,34,406/- which has been wrongly calculated and that the benefit of indexed cost of acquisition and 2 ITA.No.682/JPR/2025 (Sakshi Sharma) other expenses incurred for acquiring the property has not been allowed and that addition has been made

Dasa Shetty Kantha, Bangalore vs. ACIT Circle 6(3)(1), Bangalore

ITA 299/BANG/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Aug 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri Hari Pd. Nayak, ARFor Respondent: Shri N Balusamy, JCIT

Section 2(47)(v)Section 234A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'A' BENCH, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K, JUDICIAL

Dasa Shetty Kantha, Bangalore vs. ACIT Circle 3(2)(1), Bangalore

ITA 1926/BANG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri Hari Pd. Nayak, ARFor Respondent: Shri N Balusamy, JCIT

Section 2(47)(v)Section 234A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'A' BENCH, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K, JUDICIAL

Shivaji Vishnu Chavan, Pune vs. Uito Ward-5(4), Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1143/PUN/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1143/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shivaji Vishnu Chavan, V The Income Tax Officer, Gomukh, 92/2, Gangtok, S Ward-5(4), Pune. Narsapur, Pune – 411004. Maharashtra. Pan: Aaspc1061B Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Pramod S Shingte – Ar Revenue By Shri Arvind Renge – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 31/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 13/08/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Shivaji Vishnu Chavan In Form No.36 Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Act, Dated 31.05.2024 For The A.Y.2011-12 Emanating From Assessment Order U/S.147 R.W.S 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2011-12, Dated 12.12.2018. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 274Section 50CSection 68

sale of immovable property, without appreciating the fact that appellant is only the owner of 1/6th portion of such property and if the indexed cost of acquisition is considered there will be no tax implications. Your appellant prays for correct calculation as per the provisions of law and the entire ... Stamp Authority, value of the property for the purpose of calculating Stamp Duty was Rs.32,55,000/-. Ld.AR submitted that after reducing the Index Cost of Acquisition, which comes to Rs.32,69,175/-, there will be a loss. Ld.AR submitted that all these details were submitted before the ld.CIT

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

In the result, this ground-7 of appeal is dismissed

ITA 189/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Satyaprakash R Singh, CIT DR

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 144(2)Section 14ASection 14A(2)Section 250Section 43C

under the proviso to Section 48, of the Income Tax Act, 1961( the Act). Consequently, based on the cost inflation index prescribed, the indexed cost of acquisition was arrived at GBP 2,76,54,522, working of which has been submitted vide our letter dated 4th September 2018 in Annexure

Vidhi Pragnesh Modi, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-4(2)(5), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1917/AHD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

Section 144Section 148Section 54Section 54F

Whether on facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not allowing the deduction of "indexed cost of acquisition" against addition of Rs.80,00,000/-? I.T.A No. 1917/Ahd/2024 A.Y. 2014-15 Page No 3 Vidhi Pragnesh Modi vs. ITO 2. Whether

Harishchandra Laxman Dongre, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Mum-W-(221)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assesse bearing ITA No

ITA 3582/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankarharishchandra Laxman Income-Tax Officer, Mum-W- Dongre, 2(21)(1), Mumbai, 2Nd Floor, Pitru Chhaya, Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, Mumbai-400 Govandi Station Road, 051 Sanghavi Estate, Mumbai-400 088 Pan : Anopd3687R Applicant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Sanjiv G Brahme, CAFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, SR DR

Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 249(2)Section 250

Khairane, Navi Mumbai, for a consideration of Rs.36,33,000/- on 27/04/2017, against a stamp duty valuation of Rs.35,38,000/-. Considering the indexed cost of acquisition at Rs.21,22,703/-, the resultant capital gain was Rs.15,10,297/-, which was claimed as exempt, as the assessee had invested

DCIT Central Circle 05, Delhi vs. Deepak Kothari, Kanpur

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

ITA 1834/DEL/2021[20017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Aug 2025

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 49(4)Section 56(2)(vii)

Accordingly, he added the interest with the sale consideration and determined the actual sale consideration of Rs.15,56,25,157/- and after giving indexation cost of acquisition of Rs.3,71,48,678/-, accordingly determined the LTCG of Rs.11,84,76,479/-. In the net result, he determined the interest calculated ... provisions of clause (ii) shall have effect as if for the words "cost of acquisition" and "cost of any improvement", the words "indexed cost of acquisition" and "indexed cost of any improvement" had respectively been substituted:" 4 1.13 It is not the case of the Assessing Officer that the capital