← All Phrases

“Section 49(2)”

Section References (mined)Section 49Section 49(2)6 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 49(2) is CIT v. Manjula J. Shah (355 ITR 474), cited in 113 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 49(2)

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).

49 ITR 112 (SC) Sreelekh Banerjee v. CIT 1-10 2
69 Taxmann.com 219 · 2016 · Supreme Court
85
citing judgments

The core legal principle established in Sreelekh Banerjee v. CIT (1963) 49 ITR 112 (SC) relates to the burden of proof for explaining cash credits under the Income Tax Act.

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.

Joint Commissioner. 10. In Shin Etsu Chemical Co. Ltd. v. Aksh Optifibre Ltd.
7 SCC 234 · 2005 · Reported
75
citing judgments

A statute prescribing a procedure using negative language (e.g., 'in no other manner') imposes absolute requirements, and failure to comply will invalidate the entire proceeding.

ADIT(IT) v. Baan Global BV: 49 ITR(T) 73 (Mum)
317 ITR 169 · 2009 · Reported
70
citing judgments

Payments for the use of copyrighted articles, including computer software, constitute royalty income under Section 9(1)(vi) of the Income Tax Act, and are therefore subject to withholding tax under Section 195.

New Jehangir Vakil Mills Co. Ltd. v. CIT
49 ITR 137 · 1963 · Supreme Court
59
citing judgments

The principle of res judicata or estoppel does not apply to income tax proceedings. Each assessment year's assessment is final only for that specific year and does not bind or govern assessments for subsequent years.

49 ITR 112 (SC) Sreelekhal3anerjee v. CIT 2
25 Taxmann.com 552 · 2012 · Supreme Court
53
citing judgments

An Assessing Officer can make additions to income even if books of account have not been rejected, and filing a VAT return is not conclusive proof of sales. Decisions cited in support of this proposition include Zaveri Diamond Vs CIT.

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).

Judgments citing Section 49(2)

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

holding as well as consequential benefit of indexation [refer detailed submissions, section 49(1)(e) read with section 2(42A) read with section 49(2) for amalgamation and section 49(1)(e) read with section 49(2C)) read with section 2(42A) in the context of demerger]. 7. As explained

ACIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad, Vejalpur vs. Aia Engineering Limited, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed, whereas the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 532/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarआयकर अपील सं / Ita No. 397/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 बनाम Aia Engineering Limited, Dcit Vs. 115, Gvmm Estate, Odhav Road, Circle-1(1)(1), Odhav, Ahmedabad-382415 Ahmedabad Pan : Aabca 2777 J आयकर अपील सं / Ita No. 532/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 बनाम Aia Engineering Limited, Acit, Vs. 115, Gvmm Estate, Odhav Road, Circle-1(1)(1), Odhav, Ahmedabad-382415 Ahmedabad Pan : Aabca 2777 J अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" "" "" यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate & Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, Ar ""थ" की ओर से / Revenue By : Shri Pratik Sharma, Sr Dr & Shri Sudhendu Das, Cit-Dr तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09.10.2024 सुनवाई क" क" तारीख सुनवाई सुनवाई सुनवाई क" क" तारीख तारीख घोषणा क" क" तारीख तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21.10.2024 घोषणा घोषणा घोषणा क" क" तारीख तारीख आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Pratik Sharma, Sr DR &
Section 154Section 250Section 32

shareholders, received as consideration for transfer of shares of amalgamating company, to be same as the cost of shares of amalgamating company under section 49(2) of the Act. 32.4 From the above, it would appear that the intent of the Legislature is to make amalgamation a tax neutral scheme

Tata Sons Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT 2, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3468/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jan 2024AY 2009-10
Section 100Section 263Section 48

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘E‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Commissioner of Income Tax Del vs. M/S Abhuinandan Investments Lt

Appeals are allowed

ITA - 853 / 2005HC Delhi07 Aug 2020
Section 260ASection 391Section 47

provision in the Act with regard to the manner of determination of the cost of these shares. This was for the reason that section 49(2) prescribed the mode of determining the cost where the shares in an amalgamated company had become the property of the assessee in consideration ... assessees of the acquisition of the shares of the amalgamated company had to be determined in accordance with the provision of section 49(2), that is to say, the cost was deemed to be the cost of the acquisition by the assessees of their shares in the amalgamating company.” [Emphasis

Commissioner of Income Tax Del vs. M/S M/S Jindal Equipment Leasi

Appeals are allowed

ITA - 935 / 2005HC Delhi07 Aug 2020
Section 260ASection 391Section 47

provision in the Act with regard to the manner of determination of the cost of these shares. This was for the reason that section 49(2) prescribed the mode of determining the cost where the shares in an amalgamated company had become the property of the assessee in consideration ... assessees of the acquisition of the shares of the amalgamated company had to be determined in accordance with the provision of section 49(2), that is to say, the cost was deemed to be the cost of the acquisition by the assessees of their shares in the amalgamating company.” [Emphasis

Commissioner of Income Tax Del vs. M/S Mansarovar Investments Ltd

Appeals are allowed

ITA - 961 / 2005HC Delhi07 Aug 2020
Section 260ASection 391Section 47

provision in the Act with regard to the manner of determination of the cost of these shares. This was for the reason that section 49(2) prescribed the mode of determining the cost where the shares in an amalgamated company had become the property of the assessee in consideration ... assessees of the acquisition of the shares of the amalgamated company had to be determined in accordance with the provision of section 49(2), that is to say, the cost was deemed to be the cost of the acquisition by the assessees of their shares in the amalgamating company.” [Emphasis