← All Phrases

“Section 49(1)(e)”

Section References (mined)Section 49Section 49(1)(e)7 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 49(1)(e) is Marketing Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT (122 Taxmann.com 40), cited in 41 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 49(1)(e)

Marketing Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT
122 Taxmann.com 40 · 2020 · Reported
41
citing judgments

Where goodwill is recorded pursuant to a merger based on purchase consideration determined by a valuation report, and no goodwill is transferred from the predecessor's books, the fifth proviso to section 32(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is not applicable, and thus depreciation on such goodwill is not allowable.

PCIT v. CIMS Hospital Pvt.Ltd.
125 Taxmann.com 227 · 2021 · High Court
17
citing judgments

The Assessing Officer can apply Rule 8D for disallowance under Section 14A only if they are not satisfied with the correctness of the assessee's claim regarding expenditure in relation to exempt income, after considering the assessee's accounts. Invocation of Rule 8D is not automatic.

CIT v. Rasiklal Maneklal (HUF)
177 ITR 198 · 1989 · Supreme Court
14
citing judgments

An exchange is a mutual transfer of ownership of one thing for the ownership of another. This definition of exchange is consistent with the definition of 'transfer' under Section 2(47) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which includes exchange or relinquishment of an asset.

2007) 5 SCC 447; Union of India v. Mohindra Supply Co.: AIR 1962 SC 256; Bank of England v. Vagliano Bros 39 LR
1 SCC 633 · 2002 · Reported
12
citing judgments

The levy of interest under Section 234-A of the Income Tax Act is statutory, mandatory, and automatic, meaning it cannot be a question of law that can be raised in appeal. The High Court's jurisdiction under Section 260A is limited to questions of law, and thus, observations on the levy of interest are generally outside its scope.

Hindustan Lever v. State of Maharashtra
9 SCC 438 · 2004 · Reported
11
citing judgments

Amalgamation, involving a compromise or arrangement sanctioned by the court, is a foundational basis for passing an order of amalgamation, and the subsequent acquisition of assets by the other undertaking signifies the loss of identity and ownership of the earlier concern.

Judgments citing Section 49(1)(e)

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Kct Papers Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, grounds raised by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 3380/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Dec 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmaacit, Circle 5 (1) Vs. M/S. Kct Papers Limited, New Delhi. Thapar House, 124, Janpath, New Delhi – 110 001. (Pan : Aacck4937D) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rohit Jain, Advocate Shri Deepesh Jain, Advocate Shri Tavish Verma, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Kailash Dan Ratnoo, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 10.09.2025 Date Of Order : 05.12.2025 O R D E R Per S.Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-Viii, New Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Cit (A)] Dated 21.03.2014For Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are, The Assessee Company Belongs To The Thapar Group Established By Late Lala Karam Chand Thapar. There Was A Family Settlement Between The Various Constituents Of The Karam Chand Thapar Family As A Result Of Which Revenue-Organization/Restructuring Of The Group Dated 27Th April, 2001. The Re April, 2001. The Re-Organization Of The Group Companies & Trusts Organization Of The Group Companies & Trusts Was Made Into Four Groups, As Under, Each Headed By The Sons Of Late Lala Was Made Into Four Groups, As Under, Each Headed By The Sons Of Late Lala Was Made Into Four Groups, As Under, Each Headed By The Sons Of Late Lala K.C. Thapar. The Family Tree Of Karam Chand T K.C. Thapar. The Family Tree Of Karam Chand Thapar Family Is Explained As Hapar Family Is Explained As Under In The Form Of A Diagrammatic Chart: Under In The Form Of A Diagrammatic Chart:

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kailash Dan Ratnoo, CIT DR
Section 391

including the period for which such shares were held by previous owners in its period of holding in accordance with the provisions of section 49(1)(e) and section 2(42A) of the Act. 21. The aforesaid facts were also duly submitted before the assessing officer during the course ... conditions of demerger as prescribed under section 2(19AA) were duly satisfied by the assessee and therefore, in view of the provisions of section 49(1)(e) and 2(42A) of the Act, the assessee had rightly considered cost to previous owner as its cost of acquisition and also included

M/S Estin Tie Up Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T., Central Circle-1(2), Kolkata

In the result, the two cross appeals filed by the assessee as well as the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 32/KOL/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 50C(1)Section 55A

holding Company. The cost therefore is to be taken which was in the hands of original company in 1910 (vide section 0 (vide section 49(1)(e) read with se 47 (vib) and then by taking the fair market value as on 1.4.1981 and then indexed cost of acquisition ... consideration. The assessee contends that the cost should be taken which was in the hands of the original company in 1910 as per section 49(1)(e) r.w.s. 47(vib) and then by taking the fair market value as on 01.04.1981 and the indexed cost of acquisition vide section 49

A.C.I.T., Central Circle-1(2), Kolkata vs. M/S Estin Tie Up Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the two cross appeals filed by the assessee as well as the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 141/KOL/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 50C(1)Section 55A

holding Company. The cost therefore is to be taken which was in the hands of original company in 1910 (vide section 0 (vide section 49(1)(e) read with se 47 (vib) and then by taking the fair market value as on 1.4.1981 and then indexed cost of acquisition ... consideration. The assessee contends that the cost should be taken which was in the hands of the original company in 1910 as per section 49(1)(e) r.w.s. 47(vib) and then by taking the fair market value as on 01.04.1981 and the indexed cost of acquisition vide section 49

Pmv Maltings Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-19(2), New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the assessee for ITA No

ITA 6906/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

Section 143(3)Section 32

other intangibleasset. It is in the aforesaid context that learned counsel for the appellant had sought to rely upon section 49and more particularly section 49(1)(e) thereof. 8. The aforesaid submission, however, clearly loses sight of the fact that section 47 in express terms excludesthe transfer of a capital

Pmv Maltings Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-19(2), New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the assessee for ITA No

ITA 3103/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

Section 143(3)Section 32

other intangibleasset. It is in the aforesaid context that learned counsel for the appellant had sought to rely upon section 49and more particularly section 49(1)(e) thereof. 8. The aforesaid submission, however, clearly loses sight of the fact that section 47 in express terms excludesthe transfer of a capital

ACIT, Circle-1(1), Rajkot vs. Gandhi Reality (India) Private Limited, Rajkot

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 110/RJT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot25 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm

For Appellant: Shri R. K. Doshi, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Verma, Ld. CIT. (DR)
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 230

Gandhi Reality(I) Pvt. Ltd apply, pointing out the definition of "cost of acquisition" in Section 55(2), and relied on Section 49(1)(e). However, the Court emphasized that Section 47 excludes the transfer of a capital asset in an approved scheme of amalgamation. The Court also highlighted that

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1, Jodhpur vs. Suncity Metals and Tubes Pvt. Ltd., Jodhpur

In the result, the revenue appeal is dismissed

ITA 267/JODH/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur24 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, HonʼBle & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi, Hon'Ble

Section 32(1)Section 32(1)(ii)Section 43(1)Section 55(2)(a)

Section 49 of the Act should apply, particularly highlighting the definition of "cost of acquisition" in Section 55(2) and relying on Section 49(1)(e). However, the court emphasized that Section 47 excludes the transfer of a capital asset in an approved scheme of amalgamation. Ultimately, the Delhi High