← All Phrases

“Section 49(4)”

Section References (mined)Section 49Section 49(4)10 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 49(4) is CIT v. R. Nalini Devi ITTA 232 of 2013 (A. P) (294 ITR 49), cited in 299 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 49(4)

CIT v. R. Nalini Devi ITTA 232 of 2013 (A. P)
294 ITR 49 · 2007 · Supreme Court
299
citing judgments

Additions to income cannot be made solely based on uncorroborated third-party statements, documents, or loose sheets seized during a search, and such evidence requires the assessee to be provided with an opportunity for cross-examination.

CIT v. Nirma Ltd.
397 ITR 49 · 2017 · High Court
82
citing judgments

Interest from debtors and foreign exchange rate difference arising from exports are includible in the eligible profit for computing deductions under section 80HHC.

KLM Royal Dutch Airlines v. Additional Director of Income Tax
292 ITR 49 · 2007 · High Court
78
citing judgments

Reassessment proceedings under Section 147 cannot be initiated based on a mere change of opinion or reappraisal of existing facts, but require new or fresh tangible material or information indicating escapement of income.

Balaji Textiles Industries Pvt Ltd. v. ITO
49 ITD 177 · 1994 · ITAT
53
citing judgments

When an assessee demonstrates corresponding sales, it establishes that goods must have been purchased, and therefore, a complete disallowance of purchases solely based on doubts about supplier genuineness is generally not warranted.

S.C. Prashar v. Vasantsen Dwarkadas Hungerfor Investment Trust Ltd.
49 ITR 1 · 1963 · Supreme Court
48
citing judgments

The second proviso to Section 34(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 is unconstitutional for violating Article 14, as it allowed reassessment notices to be issued to "any person" without limit. The limitation period for issuing a reassessment notice is determined by the law prevailing on the date of issuance, including the retrospective effect of the 1948 amendment for assessing foreign income under Section 4(2).

V.M Salgaocar & Bros (P) Ltd. v. CIT
247 ITR 210 · 2001 · High Court
27
citing judgments

When the Supreme Court decides an issue, the orders of the authorities below merge with the order of the Supreme Court. This applies to appeals before the Supreme Court.

Sudhir Menon HUF v. ACIT
45 Taxmann.com 176 · 2014 · ITAT
21
citing judgments

Section 56(2)(vii)(c) does not apply to additional shares allotted pro rata to existing shareholders, as there is no scope for any property being received in such a situation.

M.J. Siwani v. CIT
53 Taxmann.com 318 · 2015 · Supreme Court
14
citing judgments

The dismissal of a Special Leave Petition (SLP) by the Supreme Court does not, in itself, constitute a judgment affirming the High Court's decision. It signifies that the Supreme Court did not find sufficient grounds to interfere with the High Court's findings.

Judgments citing Section 49(4)

Jaipal Jain, Haryana vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Karnal

In the result, appeal of

ITA 4914/DEL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. Sudhir Kumar & Sh. Manish Agarwal

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 49(4)Section 56(2)(vii)

other sources. The assessee made out a case that the provision of section 56(2)(vii)(c) do not apply in view of section 49(4) of the Act and in view of the existing entitlement which partakes the character of ‘consideration’ for the purposes of section

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)

made u/s 56(2)(vii)(c) of the Act. 5) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law by ignoring the provisions of section 49(4) of the Income Tax Act which was introduced to determine cost with reference to certain modes of acquisition and acquisition of bonus shares

Deepak Kathari, Kanpur vs. ACIT, CC-5, New Delhi

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

ITA 1205/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

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)

made u/s 56(2)(vii)(c) of the Act. 5) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law by ignoring the provisions of section 49(4) of the Income Tax Act which was introduced to determine cost with reference to certain modes of acquisition and acquisition of bonus shares

Raj Kumar Narang, Noida vs. ITO, Ward- 4(2), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4914/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Sudhir Kumar & Sh. Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2019-20 Jaipal Jain Vs Deputy Commissioner Of H. No. 1248 Sector 11-12 Income Tax, Central Circle Huda Haryana Karnal Pan No. Abipj3891M (Appellant) Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 49(4)Section 56(2)(vii)

other sources. The assessee made out a case that the provision of section 56(2)(vii)(c) do not apply in view of section 49(4) of the Act and in view of the existing entitlement which partakes the character of ‘consideration’ for the purposes of section

Ravi Ramakrishnan, Singapore vs. International Tax Ward 4(1)(1), Mumbai

Accordingly the alternate plea of the assessee in Ground No.4 is allowed

ITA 5990/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 49(4)Section 56(2)(vii)

sustained then the same may be added to the cost of acquisition as per the provisions of section 49(4) of the Act. The DRP while upholding the addition made by the AO did not give any finding with regard to the alternate plea of the assessee. Against the final ... case and in law, the Hon'ble DRP erred in not granting corresponding relief in computation of capital gains as per section 49(4) of the Act. This has resulted in double taxation of the same income, once as Capital Gains and again as Income from Other Sources, which

Alka Jain, Panchkula vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Karnal

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

ITA 2961/DEL/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Madhumita Royi.T.A. Nos. 2960 & 2961/Del/2022 (Assessment Years : 2017-18 & 2013-14) Alka Jain Vs. Dcit House No.66, Sector-7, Central Circle Panchkula, Panipat Karnal Haryana – 134 109 Pan : Abopj 0916 B (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

For Appellant: -None-For Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 153A(1)(b)Section 250(6)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 68Section 69A

actual price paid by the shareholder and same is not to be adjusted by the amount of deemed income in terms of section 49(4) of the Act. The explanation of the AO was considered by the AO and it was observed that the appellant had received shares

Alka Jain, Panchkula vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Karnal

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

ITA 2960/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Madhumita Royi.T.A. Nos. 2960 & 2961/Del/2022 (Assessment Years : 2017-18 & 2013-14) Alka Jain Vs. Dcit House No.66, Sector-7, Central Circle Panchkula, Panipat Karnal Haryana – 134 109 Pan : Abopj 0916 B (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

For Appellant: -None-For Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 153A(1)(b)Section 250(6)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 68Section 69A

actual price paid by the shareholder and same is not to be adjusted by the amount of deemed income in terms of section 49(4) of the Act. The explanation of the AO was considered by the AO and it was observed that the appellant had received shares

The DCIT, Circle-2(1), Thrissur vs. Sri.K.P. Johny, Thrissur

In the result, both the assessee’s and the Revenue’s appeals are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 254/COCH/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin09 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dask.P. Johny Asst. Cit, Manappuram House Circle – 2(1) Hospital Road, Chalakkudy Aayakar Bhavan Vs. Thrissur 680307 Sakthan Thampuran Nagar [Pan:Acgpj4958G] Thrissur 680001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Asst. Cit, K.P. Johny Circle – 2(1) Manappuram House Aayakar Bhavan Hospital Road, Chalakkudy Vs. Sakthan Thampuran Nagar Thrissur 680307 Thrissur 680001 [Pan: Acgpj4958G] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri T.M. Sreedharan, Sr. Advocate (with Smt. Divya Ravindran, Adv. with him)For Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR
Section 131(1)Section 133ASection 147Section 148(1)Section 69

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountant Member and Shri Manomohan Das, Judicial

Sri.K.P. Johny, Thrissur vs. The DCIT, Circle-2(1), Thrissur

In the result, both the assessee’s and the Revenue’s appeals are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 206/COCH/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin09 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dask.P. Johny Asst. Cit, Manappuram House Circle – 2(1) Hospital Road, Chalakkudy Aayakar Bhavan Vs. Thrissur 680307 Sakthan Thampuran Nagar [Pan:Acgpj4958G] Thrissur 680001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Asst. Cit, K.P. Johny Circle – 2(1) Manappuram House Aayakar Bhavan Hospital Road, Chalakkudy Vs. Sakthan Thampuran Nagar Thrissur 680307 Thrissur 680001 [Pan: Acgpj4958G] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri T.M. Sreedharan, Sr. Advocate (with Smt. Divya Ravindran, Adv. with him)For Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR
Section 131(1)Section 133ASection 147Section 148(1)Section 69

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountant Member and Shri Manomohan Das, Judicial

Shri Ravi Ramakrishnan, Mumbai vs. International Tax Ward 4(1)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose in the terms aforesaid directions

ITA 646/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं.646/मुं/2023 (िन.व.2014-15) Ravi Ramakrishnan, 205/404, Khar Rose Minar Building, 4Th Floor, 10Th Road, Khar (West, Mumbai 400 052 Pan: Anwpr-2793-J ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. International Tax Ward 4(1)(1), Room No.1729, 17Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021. ..... "ितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Ms. Anushree Gupta "ितवादी "ारा/Respondent By : Shri Anil Sant सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 26/09/2023 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 26/09/2023 आदेश आदेश/ Order आदेश आदेश Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 10/01/2023 Passed U/S. 147 R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [ In Short ‘The Act], For Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds In Appeal: “ The Following Grounds Are Independent Of & Without Prejudice To One Another: 1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In The Law, The Final Assessment Order Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer ('Ld. Ao') Under Section 147 R.W.S. 144C(13) / Directions Passed By The Hon'Ble Dispute Resolution Panel ('Drp') Under 2 Section 144C(5) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 ('The Act1) Is Bad, Both In The Eye Of Law & On The Facts On Account Of:

For Appellant: Ms. Anushree GuptaFor Respondent: Shri Anil Sant
Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 49(4)Section 56(2)(vii)

email dated 13 December, 2022 wherein the Appellant had submitted the write up for granting corresponding relief in capital gains computation as per section 49(4) of the Act along with relevant case laws. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Appellant has filed