“cost inflation index”

Capital GainsSection 48Section 4872 judgments

The decision most relied on for cost inflation index is CIT v. Manjula J. Shah (355 ITR 474), cited in 113 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on cost inflation index

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).

Judgments citing cost inflation index

Dy.Commissioner of Income-Tax, 5(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Suashish Diamonds Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 5256/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

For Appellant: Mr. Shivram a/w Rahul HakaniFor Respondent: Mr. Kiran Unavekar, Sr. DR

this section,- (i) …… (ii) …… (iii) “indexed cost of acquisition” means an amount which bears to the cost of acquisition the same proportion as Cost Inflation Index for the year in which the asset is transferred bears to the Cost Inflation Index for the first year in which the asset ... Thus, while computing indexed cost of acquisition, for generating a factor to be multiplied with the cost of acquisition, the cost inflation Index for the year in which property is sold, is divided by the cost inflation index when the property is held by the assessee. The expression "held

DCIT, Mumbai vs. Suashish Diamonds Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 5248/MUM/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 May 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

For Appellant: Mr. Shivram a/w Rahul HakaniFor Respondent: Mr. Kiran Unavekar, Sr. DR

K. Rathinam, Coimbatore vs. ITO, Ncw-2(4), Coimbatore

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

ITA 360/CHNY/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:360/Chny/2025 धनधाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13 K. Rathinam, Income Tax Officer, 9, S N Layout, Vs. Non Corporate Ward - 2(4), Edayarpalayam, Coimbatore. Coimbatore – 641 025. [Pan: Adspr-4055-P] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. A. Suraj Nahar, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Deeptha, Addl.C.I.T

Section 144Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 44A

treated the sale of immovable property liable for long term capital gain by allowing the deduction of cost of acquisition with Cost inflation index. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT (A). 4. Before the ld.CIT(A) also, the assessee

Chetna Kantilal Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Cirlce-3(1)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 172/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Aseem Thakkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Santosh Kumar, Sr DR

Section 115BSection 147Section 148Section 250

long term Chetna Kantilal Patel Vs. DCIT Asst. Year : 2018-19 - 3– capital asset and hence the appellant should be given benefit of cost inflation Index while computing the long term capital gain.” 3. On going through the record, we find that the notices u/s.250 were issued

Lakshminarayan Realfinvest, Mumbai vs. Dy, Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -10(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 3832/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara, ()

Section 10(38)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

book page 81 to 83 of the paper book. He submitted that, the since asset was held for the first time since 2010, cost inflation index of that year was to be applied on the total purchase consideration payable by the assessee as per agreement. ITA No. 3832/Mum/2024;A.Y.2015-16 Lakshminarayan ... 3832/Mum/2024;A.Y.2015-16 Lakshminarayan Realfinvest Ltd. "indexed cost of acquisition" means an amount which bears to the cost of acquisition the same proportion as Cost Inflation Index for the year in which the asset is transferred bears to the Cost Inflation Index for the first year in which the asset

Madanraj Hamirmal Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO, Erode

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1335/CHNY/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 1334 & 1335/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Madanraj Hamirmal Shah Income Tax Officer, C-405, Royal Samrat, Ward -1(2), S.V. Road,Goregoan West, V. Erode. Mumbai – 400 062. [Pan: Adwpm-2343-M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. P.C. Jain, Advocate & Shri. Mohit Bangani, Advocate ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. P. Vijaideepan, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11.02.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 26.03.2025

For Appellant: Shri. P.C. Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri. P. Vijaideepan, JCIT

Section 147Section 148

u/s.143(3) r.w.s.147 of the Act on 31.12.2019by denying the deduction of cost of improvement of Rs.23,50,000/- along with the cost inflation index and computed the long term capital gain at Rs.39,06,425/-. Aggrieved by the order of the AO the assessee preferred an appeal before

Madanraj Hamirmal Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO, Erode

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1334/CHNY/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri. P.C. Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri. P. Vijaideepan, JCIT

Section 147Section 148

Smt. Jayanthi Seeman, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw - 1 (2), Chennai

ITA 773/CHNY/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S.R.Raghunatha, Hon'Bleआयकर अपील सं/.Ita Nos.: 770, 771, 772 & 773/Chny/2020 निर्धा रणवर्ष / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Smt. Jayanthi Seeman, C/O. Aparna Nandakumar, Advocate & Tax Consultant, J Nandakumar & Poojesh J (Advocates) No. 6, Ramakrishna Street, T.Nagar, Chennai – 600 017. [Pan: Acypj-0739-K] (अपीलार्थी/Assessee) अपीलार्थीकीओरसे/Assessee By प्रत्यर्थीकीओरसे/Respondent By सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement Income Tax Officer, Non-Corporate Ward -1(2), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Shri. Y. Sridhar, Fca Shri. R. Raghupathy, Addl.Cit 20.02.2025 28.02.2025 आदेश/Order Per S. R. Raghunatha: These Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 2, Chennai, All Dated 30.07.2020 For The Assessment Years 2010-11 To 2013-14.

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 69

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “ए” न्यायपीठ चेन्नई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL `A' BENCH, CHENNAI श्री एबी टी. वर्की

Smt. Jayanthi Seeman, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw - 1 (2), Chennai

ITA 772/CHNY/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S.R.Raghunatha, Hon'Bleआयकर अपील सं/.Ita Nos.: 770, 771, 772 & 773/Chny/2020 निर्धा रणवर्ष / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Smt. Jayanthi Seeman, C/O. Aparna Nandakumar, Advocate & Tax Consultant, J Nandakumar & Poojesh J (Advocates) No. 6, Ramakrishna Street, T.Nagar, Chennai – 600 017. [Pan: Acypj-0739-K] (अपीलार्थी/Assessee) अपीलार्थीकीओरसे/Assessee By प्रत्यर्थीकीओरसे/Respondent By सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement V. Income Tax Officer, Non-Corporate Ward -1(2), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Shri. Y. Sridhar, Fca Shri. R. Raghupathy, Addl.Cit 20.02.2025 28.02.2025 आदेश/Order Per S. R. Raghunatha: These Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 2, Chennai, All Dated 30.07.2020 For The Assessment Years 2010-11 To 2013-14.

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 69

Sanjeev Kumar Kathuria, Yamuna Nagar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1, Yamunanagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 329/CHANDI/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Jain, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(3)

indexed cost of acquisition as per clause (iii) of the Explanation to section 48 has to be determined with reference to the cost inflation index for the first year in which the asset was held by the assessee and in the present case, as the assessee held the asset with ... effect from 1-2-2003, the first year of holding the asset would be financial year 2002-03 and, accordingly, the cost inflation index for 2002-03 would be applicable in determining the indexed cost of acquisition. [Para 16] There is no merit in the above contention. As rightly contended

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Mulliambal Rathnasamy Pitchakannu Eraavanan, Chennai

In the result, both the appeal filed by the Revenue and the Cross

ITA 1810/CHNY/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Feb 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1810/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 & C.O. No. 74/Chny/2024 [In Ita No. 1810/Chny/2024] The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Shri Arvind E & Mrs. Baskaravalli Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), (Legal Heir Of Late Shri Mrp Investigation Building, Eraavanan), No. 4, Rice Mill Road, Chennai. Erimedu, Ramanathapuram, Coimbatore 641 045. [Pan:Aaape5554D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sundar Rajan, Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri C. Khathiravan, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 11.02.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26.02.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30.04.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Chennai-19, Chennai For The Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Dr Shri S. Sundar Rajan, Cit Drew Our Attention To Additional Grounds Raised By The Appellant – Revenue. He Submits That The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Is Erroneous On Facts Of The Case

For Appellant: Shri S. Sundar Rajan, CITFor Respondent: Shri C. Khathiravan, Advocate

Section 159Section 2

Nadar was effected by Mr. Eravanan. As no details of purchase deed and other details were furnished by the assessee, the benefit of Cost Inflation Index is not provided. Hence, Long Term Capital Gains arising out of the sale proceeds of Rs. 9,58,38,600/- in the hands

The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Ahmedabad vs. Shri Kailash Ramavatar Goenka, Ahmedabad

ITA 67/AHD/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Jan 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr.Advocate &For Respondent: Shri R.N. Dsouza, CIT-DR &

Section 132Section 153A

No.1/Ahd/2023 Kailash Ramavatar Goenka vs. ACIT and seven other appeals (By Assessee and By Revenue) Asst. Years : 2016-17 to 2019-20 the Cost Inflation Index (CII) of the year of transfer while determining the indexed cost of acquisition and improvement. 13.3. The Revenue’s contention that there

Ajay Agarwal, Jaipur vs. CIT (It), Delhi-1, CIT(It) Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 637/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: MS Suhani Meharwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 129Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 195Section 263

Y.2017-18 noticed that some payments were made in F.Y 2012-13. However, in the computation of total income, for the purpose of indexation, cost inflation index has been taken for F.Y 2011-12 instead of F.Y 2012-13. Thus, excess cost of indexation amounting

Naresh Jeramdas Idnani, Mumbai vs. ITO, Int Tax Ward-2(2)(1), Mumbai

Accordingly, Ground No.1.1. to 1.3. raised by the Appellant are allowed while all the grounds raised by the Appellant are dismissed as having being rendered infructuous

ITA 3787/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tarang Mehta / Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 154(7)Section 234D

obtained from a valuer. The Indexed Cost of Acquisition was computed by the Appellant as under: - FMV as on 01/04/1981 : INR.6,71,160/- - Cost Inflation Index for F.Y. 2015-16 : 1081 - Cost Inflation Index for F.V. 1981-02 : 100 - Indexed Cost of Acquisition : INR.72,55,240/- [INR.6

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Thane vs. Aarav Fragrances and Flavors Private Limited, Thane

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

ITA 546/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2016-17 Dy. Cit, Circle-1, Aarav Fragrances & Flavors Pvt. Room No. 22, B Wing, 6Th Floor, Ltd., Ashar I.T. Park, Road No. 16Z, Vs. Plot No. A-152/153 Wagle Industrial Wagle Indl. Estate, Area, Road No. 25, Midc, Thane-400604. Thane (W) – 400604. Pan No. Aagca 2145 K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Rajesh Athavale

Section 45Section 48

back scheme. Accordingly, the assessee computed long term capital gain by deducting the indexed cost of acquisition of assessee, which wascomputed by applying cost inflation index. The same resulted in long term capital loss of Rs.22.93 crores. The AO took the view that the cost of inflation index is determined ... cost of inflation index in respect of its foreign assets held and sold outside India. Accordingly, the AO denied the benefit of cost inflation index and accordingly, re-computed the long term capital gain, which worked to long term capital loss of Rs.11.53 crores. We noticed earlier that the assessee

Aarav Fragrance and Flavors Pvt Ltd, Thane Maharashtra vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle One Thane

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

ITA 301/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Omkareshwar Chidaraassessment Year: 2016-17 Aarav Fragrances & Flavors Acit, Circle-1, Thane, Private Limited Maharashtra Plot A-152/153, Wagle Industrial Vs. Area, Road No. 25, Midc, Thane (West), Maharashtra-400604. Pan: Aagca 2145 K (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Rajesh Athavale Revenue By : Dr. K.R. Subhash, Cit/Dr Date Of Hearing : 01.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.10.2024 O R D E R Per Beena Pillai:

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh AthavaleFor Respondent: Dr. K.R. Subhash, CIT/DR

Section 143(2)Section 29Section 36(2)

term capital loss of Rs.11,52,48,813 after disallowing the claim of indexation of Rs.11,40,98,327 with a remark that, cost inflation index notified by the Central Govt. Is based on average price index pertaining to Indian economy, and therefore the CII notified by Central Govt. cannot

Rajen Rajmalbhai Mehta, Surat vs. ACIT, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1760/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2011-12 Rajen Rajmalbhai Mehta, Assistant Commissioner Of 501, Swagat Complex, Income Tax, Vs. Near Mehta Park, Nanpura, Mumbai Surat, Gujarat – 395001 (Pan : Aabpm4155D) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : None Revenue : Smt. Mahita Nair, Sr. Dr

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)

assessee in the year 2007, the assessee and his wife got the right in the said property through inheritance and accordingly cost inflation index from the date the previous owner held the said property would be applicable in determining the indexed cost of acquisition and indexed cost of improvement

Precision Component Hightech Ltd, Nagpur vs. ACIT Central Circle 2(2), Nagpur

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed as above for all the seven years

ITA 97/NAG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur02 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Ms. Shikha LoyaFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 234B

estimated profitability statement is held to be constant for seven years ignoring inflation. Then why for purpose of computing long term capital gain cost inflation index changes every year as enshrined in section 48 of the Act. The Satisfaction Note drawn on a combined basis without any specific reference

Precision Component Hightech Ltd., Nagpur vs. ACIT Central Circle 2(2), Nagpur

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed as above for all the seven years

ITA 96/NAG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur02 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Ms. Shikha LoyaFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 234B

Precision Component Hightech Ltd, Nagpur vs. ACIT Central Circle 2(2), Nagpur

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed as above for all the seven years

ITA 95/NAG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur02 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Ms. Shikha LoyaFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 234B