“cost inflation index”

M/S. Sumit Exports, Mumbai vs. The ACIT 19(3), Mumbai

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Sumit Export V. Acit – 19(3) Dw-5030, 5Th Floor Matru Mandir, Tardev Road D.Tower, Bharat Diamond Bourse Mumbai – 400 007 Bandra Kurla Complex Bandra (E), Mumbai -400051 Pan: Aacfs3599Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Rahul Sarda Department Represented By : Shri Manoj Sinha

from that date as per Explanation (Hi) to section 48. and since the asset had been held for the first time in 1993 cost inflation index of that year was to be applied on the total purchase consideration pavable by the assessee as per agreement regardless of the dates

Bachubhai Dharamshi Arethiya, Navi Mumbai vs. Asst CIT CC 3, Thane

In the result with the above discussion Ground No-4 raised by the assessee is dismissed, as we don’t see any reason to interfere in the findings of Ld

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyalbachubhai Dharamshi Arethiya, 230, 2Nd Floor, Big Splash, Plot No. 78-79, Sec.Tor-17, Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400705. Pan: Adepp8750F ...... Appellant Vs. Acit, Cc- 3, Room No. 12, A-Wing, Ashar It Park, 6Th Floor, Road No. 16Z, Wagle Industrial Estate, Thane (West)-400604. ..... Respondent Appellant By : Ms. Ritika Agarwal, Adv. Respondent By : Sh. Chetan M. Kacha, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 18/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 14/10/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal), Pune-11 [Hereinafter Referred To As [‘Cit(A)’] Dated 17.01.2020 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961

date of its transfer” "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 was “held ... that indexed cost of acquisition has been defined to mean 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

Mr. Mahesh D. Saini, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-35(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vp & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1929/Mum/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2011-12) Mr. Mahesh D. Saini बिधम/ Ito, Ward-35(2)(3) 203, Lukhi Niwas Kailash Room No. 745, 7Th Floor, Vs. Puri, Upper Govind Nagar, Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To Plot No. 135, Malad (E), C-43, G Block, Bandra Mumbai-400097. Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aajps1048M (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Haresh B. Shah Revenue By: Dr. Pratap Narayan Sharma (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 27/06/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 10/08/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-46, Mumbai Dated 28.02.2020 For Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.1,05,37,002/- As Long Term Capital Gain (Ltcg) Treating The Purported Capital Asset As Transfer In View Of The Provisions Of Section 2(47) (V) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) R.W. Section 53A Of The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 (4 Of 1882) (Hereinafter In Short As “Topa”). 3. Brief Facts Of The Case As Noted By The Ld. Cit(A) Is That The Ao Noticed That During The Year, The Assessee Jointly With His Two (2) Brothers, Viz Shri Formal Dedrajmali Alias Sainik/Siani & Shri Kailash Dedraj Mali Alias Sainik/Saini, Entered Into Sale Cum

dated 12.02.2016 3 Indexed cost of acquisition 15,62,998 (i) Year of indexation allowable to the assessee, as discussed above: 1995-96 Cost Inflation Index: 281 (ii) Year in which right title was transferred: 2010-11 Cost inflation index: 711 Indexed Cost:6,17,725 x 711/281 4 Long

Leila Advani, Mumbai vs. ACIT - 16(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

wholly and exclusively in connection with the transfer of the said property and so, fully deductible. 3. The AO erred in considering the Cost Inflation Index (CII) for FY 1994-95 as the year in which the assessee transferred the asset instead of the CII for FY 2010-11 being ... disallowance while computing the income of the assessee. 28. In Ground no -3 appellant challenged the action of the A.O. where he considered cost inflation index (CII) till F.Y. 1994-95 instead of CII for Financial year 2010-11. As the complete chronology of events has already been discussed (supra

Van Oord Dredging and Marine Contractors Bv, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 4(3)(1), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhvan Oord Dredging & Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Marine Contractors Bv Income-Tax (International 201, 2Nd Floor, Central Taxation)-4(3)(1) Plaza, 166 Cst Road, 16Th Floor, Air India Kalina, Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400098 Mumbai - 400020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaach3500M Appellant .. Respondent

noticed that the valuer has valued the charter hire charges of the dredgers as per the norms prescribed by CIRIA with cost inflation indexation of 1st January 2010. The valuer has ultimately determined the value of charter hire charges as per CIRIA cost standard. 12. It is relevant to observe

ITO 25(2)(5), Mumbai vs. Kirit Raojibhai Patel, Mumbai

In the result appeal of the learned AO is dismissed

Bench: Sri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Sri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm The Income Tax Officer- Kirit Raojibhai Patel 25(2)(5) 5Th Floor Ram Niwas, 34, Room No. 506, C-10, Vallabhnagar, N.S. Road, Vs. Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Bkc, Juhu, Vile Parele(W), Mumbai-400 051 Mumbai-400 049 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabpp3139J Assessee Represented By : Shri Rashmikant Choksey, Ar Department Represented By : Shri K.K. Mishra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 08.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.02.2022

which was used for deriving the fair market value of the asset as on 1/4/1981 by applying the proportionately reverse cost inflation index. Accordingly as on 1/4/1981 the value was worked out at ₹ 500,752/– and 50% of that was considered as cost of Kirit Raojibhai Patel

Shri. Seshatalpa Sai Boddupalli, Mumbai vs. ITO-23(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands allowed statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahyai.T.A. No. 4168/Mum/2019 (Assessment Year 2010-11) Vs. Ito-23(3)(3) Seshatalpa Sai Boddupalli A-11, Sunil Tulsiram Chs, Room No.-118, Matru Devidayal Nagar, Mulund(W) Mandir, Tardeo Road Mumbai-400 080 Mumbai-400 007 Pan : Aaipb1894M (Appellant) (Respondent)

above inference, the value of the property could be approximately Rs. 20 lacs for the F.Y. 2009-10. If so, as per cost inflation index, the value as on 1.4.1981 could be approximately Rs. 3,16,500/-which is the maximum. Therefore, the valuation report furnished now by the assessee