“cost inflation index”

INDORIGIN ELECTRIC LTD,WADALA MUMBAI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 4 4 MUMBAI , MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhailm/S. Indorigin Electric Ltd. Rectifier House, 570, Naigum Cross Road, Wadala, Mumbai- 400 031. ............... Appellant Pan: Aaaci1040B V/S Acit, Central Circle-4(4), Mumbai R. No. 424, 4Th Floor, Kautilya Bhavan, ……………… Respondent C-41 To C-43, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai- 400 051

cost of improvement to the property. Hence, the ground of the appellant on this issue is dismissed. However, the AO has applied cost inflation index for F. Y.2012-13 instead of F.Y. 2013-14 while computing the capital gain. In this regard, AO is directed to take cost inflation index

JAGMEET SINGH SABHARWAL,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INCOME TAX

technical and legal compliances the builder had to comply. Since payment was made in F.Y. 2006-07 and accounted for in that year cost inflation index was calculated from that year. The registration delay was beyond assessee's control and unanticipated. However, the ld.AO rejected the contention on the ground

POONAM DHANANJAY SANDU,NAVI MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NAVI MUMBAI

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

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

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, where

RAJESH VELJI RATHOD ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 3(2), MUMBAI

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

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”.

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 INFLATION INDEX Before 1/4/1981 100 1989-90 172 2010-11 711 While working out capital gain we are considering indexation as of 01.04.1981, as the property ... this Court observes that though there is no difference between the FMV in calculations submitted by the parties, however the Revenue considered the Cost Inflation Index @ 172 as of FY 1989-90, whereas the Assessee has taken Cost Inflation Index @ 100 as on or before 1/4/1981 on the pretext that

RAMESH JAISINGHANI,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

exchange by way of IPO or OFS. The amendment provided that in such cases, the FMV should be computed by applying the proportionate cost-inflation index from the year of acquisition to the year of listing. According to the ld. CIT(A), this amendment, declared effective retrospectively from 1 April ... listed on such exchange on the date of transfer …………………………………………….. an amount which bears to the cost of acquisition the same proportion as Cost inflation Index for the financial year 2017-18 bears to the Cost inflation Index for the first year In which the asset was held by the assessee

BENNETT COLEMAN & CO LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 1(1)(1), MUMBAI

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

assets eligible for indexation benefit under the proviso to Section 48, of the Income Tax\nAct, 1961( the Act). Consequently, based on the cost inflation index prescribed, the indexed cost\nof acquisition was arrived at GBP 2,76,54,522, working of which has been submitted vide our\nletter dated

BENNETT, COLEMAN & CO LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 1(1)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri. Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

assets eligible for indexation benefit 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

ANAND SWARUP MEHTA ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(INTERNATIONAL TAX)-3(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is accordingly allowed for statistical purposes\nin the above terms

erred in determining the Indexed Cost of Acquisition (as stipulated in\nExplanation to section 48 of the Act) by considering the Cost Inflation Index of FY\n2017-18 (ie, the Financial Year in which the possession of Kalpataru Property\nwas obtained and purchase instrument registered) as the first year