← All Phrases

“Section 49(1)”

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

The decision most relied on for Section 49(1) is CIT v. Manjula J. Shah (355 ITR 474), cited in 113 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 49(1)

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.

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.

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.

Hastimal v. CIT
49 ITR 273 · 1963 · High Court
57
citing judgments

An assessee's duty regarding the creditworthiness of a creditor is limited to the transactions between them, and they are not required to investigate the ultimate source of the creditor's funds. If the genuineness of the transaction and the creditworthiness are established, no addition under Section 68 is permissible.

CIT v. S.R. Patton
193 ITR 49 · 1992 · High Court
53
citing judgments

The Explanation to Section 9(1)(ii), introduced in 1983, widens the scope of the section and is not merely declaratory. It operates prospectively from April 1, 1979, and cannot be applied to periods prior to that date.

Judgments citing Section 49(1)

Kamini Velmurugan, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Mumbai

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

ITA 478/MUM/2026[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalassessment Year : 2016-17 Kamini Velmurugan, Income Tax Officer, 18/369, Rajeshwari Chs, Ward-42(2)(3), Subhasnagar, Vs. Kautilya Bhavan, Mumbai-400071. Mumbai-400051. Pan : Agzpn9256A (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Ms. Sailee Gujarathi For Revenue : Shri Aditya Rai, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 04-03-2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 17-03-2026 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [„Ld.Cit(A)‟], Dated 19-11-2025, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17. 2. Briefly, The Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessment In This Case Was Completed U/S. 147 R.W.S. 144 R.W.S. 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 („The Act‟), Vide Order Dt. 12-12-2023, Wherein The Ao Has Brought To Tax A Sum Of Rs. 42,50,000/- As Short Term Capital Gains U/S. 45 Of The Act In Absence Of Any Explanation/Evidences Submitted By The Assessee In Respect Of Sale Of Immoveable Property As Well As Cost Of Acquisition. The 2 Assessee Thereafter Carried The Matter In Appeal Before The Ld.Cit(A), Who Has Since Dismissed The Appeal On Account Of Delayed Filing & Against The Said Order, The Assessee Is In Appeal Before Us.

For Appellant: Ms. Sailee GujarathiFor Respondent: Shri Aditya Rai, Sr.DR
Section 147Section 45Section 45(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI “J-SMC” BENCH : MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2 1 1, Ahmedabad vs. Bharat Lakhaji Nandwana, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1366/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. Adv. & Ms. UktiFor Respondent: Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. Adv. & Ms. Ukti
Section 49Section 54Section 54E

subsequently sold on 10.02.2017. The CIT(A) held that in view of Explanation 1(b) to section 2(42A) read with section 49(1)(iii) of the Act, the period of holding of the previous owner is required to be included in determining the period of holding of the asset ... find any merit in the contention advanced by the Revenue. A combined reading of Explanation 1(b) to section 2(42A) and section 49(1)(iii) of the Act clearly provides that where a capital asset becomes the property of the assessee through succession, inheritance or devolution, the period

Janardan Namdev Gawali, Ambarnath vs. ITO Ward2(2) Kalyan, Kalyan

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

ITA 8245/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Girish Agrawaljanardan Namdev Gawali Palegaon, Anandnagar, Ambarnath Thane, Kalyan - Dombivali Maharashtra - 421502 ............... Appellant Pan: Apgpg9048B V/S Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), J-63/12 Addl., Murbad Rani Mansion ……………… Respondent Industrial Area Midc, 2Nd Floor Murbad Road Kalyan, Kalyan – Dombivali Maharashtra – 421301 Assessee By : Ms. Mamta Watwani Revenue By : Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Ms. Mamta WatwaniFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 250

despite the fact that the plot was inherited by the assessee from his ancestors prior to 01.04.1981, thereby ignoring the provisions of Section 49(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and unjustly denying the benefit of deduction under Section 48; c. That the learned AO erred in not accepting

Murtuza Kothari, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 19(2)(2), Mumbai

Accordingly, ground nos. 1 & 2 of the assessee are partly allowed for

ITA 4080/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Otwani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kosuri, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 48Section 49Section 50CSection 54

transfer of such ownership property, discussed at length, and held as under: Il “COST OF ACQUISITION OF RIGHTS IN THE PLOT AND SECTION 49 (1) 10. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee contended that the 10 ITA No. 4080/Mum/2025 Murtuza Kothari cost of acquisition of the Plot ... order on this point. The Id. counsel for the assessee contended that the authorities below were not justified in upholding the application of section 49(1) as such a provision was not applicable to the present facts. Per contra, the ld. DR reiterated the reasoning given

Poonam Dhananjay Sandu, Navi Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Navi Mumbai

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

ITA 2050/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, () & Shri Girish Agrawal, ()

Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 250Section 270A(3)Section 270A(9)Section 54

property transferred. The property in question was acquired by the Appellant through gift and inheritance, which falls under the scope of Section 49(1) of the Income- tax Act, 1961. The Appellant, in accordance with Section 55(2)(b)(ii), has opted to adopt the Fair Market Value ... clearly states: Where the capital asset became the property of the assessee by any of the modes specified under Section 49(1), and the asset was acquired by the previous owner before 01.04.2001, the cost of acquisition shall be either the cost to the previous owner

Vishnukumar Cokalchand Gupta, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle 19(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 4578/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (Vice President), SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay R. Singh a/wFor Respondent: Ms. Kavita Kaushik

building and the second floor was subsequently gifted by his brother to the assessee, has not been disputed by the Department. As per section 49(1) of the Act, the cost of acquisition of the asset shall be deemed to be the cost for which previous owner of the property

Laggisetty Manohar Karthik, Chennai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward 15(2), Chennai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 746/CHNY/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 746/Chny/2025 िनधा$रण वष$ / Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 147Section 54Section 80C

against the claim of the assessee on the same being the FMV as on 01.04.1981, the assessee placed reliance upon the provisions in Section 49(1) of the Act in view of the fact the subject immovable property was initially purchased by the assessee's father in the year

Mayura Nilesh Lati, Nagpur vs. ITO Ward 4(4), Nagpur

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 96/NAG/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur26 Jun 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhrymayura Nilesh Lati, Ito, Ward-4(4), Nagpur B-01, Padmanabh Residency, Plot No.16/B, Tilaknagar, Vs. Nawabarea Layout, Near Whc Road, Dharampeth, Nagpur. Pan: Aevpl 2151 E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Yash Varma, Ld. CA throughFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Ld. Sr.D.R
Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 49(1)

held that since the property was inherited by the Assessee, cost of acquisition by the previous owners should have been considered as per section 49(1) of the Act. But the AO could not arrive at such cost since no documents were filed before him at the assessment stage. Even

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

Isc Speciality Chemicals LLP, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 19(1)(5), Mumbai

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

ITA 457/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

Section 45Section 47Section 47A(4)Section 48Section 50BSection 56

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL

DCIT, Chennai vs. Thiyagarajan Ravindran, Chennai

In the result the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2054/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:2054/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Dcit, Thiyagarajan Ravindran, No.53/54, 2Nd Lane, Central Circle 1(2), Vs. Chennai Madhavaram High Road (North), Perambur, Chennai – 600 011. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) [Pan: Aaepr-1108-E] (""थ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. Shivanand K Kalakeri, CITFor Respondent: Shri. D. Anand, Advocate
Section 132Section 153ASection 2(47)Section 251(1)(a)Section 69

therefore, the settlement in her case is equivalent to gift as per the Transfer of property Act, 1882. Applying the provisions of Section 49(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the cost in her case shall be the cost of previous owner(s) only, i.e. of her other sons ... section 69B of the Income-tax Act, 1961. As there is no money paid by the assessee and as per the provisions of Section 49(1), only the cost to the previous original owner is deemed as the cost of acquisition of the asset as explained by the Explanation under

The ITO, Ward-3(3)(12), Ahmedabad vs. Shri Cawas Darasha Karaka, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 499/AHD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Adjournment application filed
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 48Section 49(1)Section 55(2)(a)Section 69A

submitted that the cost of acquisition in the hands of the assessees would be that of the forefathers by virtue of section 49(1) (iii) (a) providing that where capital assets become property of the assessee by succession, inheritance or devolution, cost of acquisition of the assets deemed ... also argued that the cost of acquisition in the hands of the assessee would be that of the forefathers by virtue of section 49(1) (iii) (a) providing that where capital assets become property of the assessee by succession, inheritance or devolution, cost of acquisition of the assets deemed

Subhash Chand Dhingra, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Cir Int Tax 1(2)(2), New Delhi

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 1184/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Mar 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Sh. Rachesh Sinha, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Rini Handa, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 49(1)

therefore, we are of the considered view that the CIT(A) impugned discussion has rightly held him as not entitled for section 49(1) benefits once the same forms subject matter of the earlier development scheme as such an instance would give rise to a double deduction claim. Rejected accordingly

Late S. Yogarathinam, Rep. by L/H Y. Shanmuga Durai, Chennai vs. ACIT, Circle-1(2), Chennai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 626/CHNY/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Mar 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:626/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2010-11 Shri Y. Shanmuga Durai, L/H Of Acit Late S.Yogarathinam Vs. Circle -1(2) Old No.24, No.14, Chennai. 17/24, Ramanathan Street, T.Nagar, Chennai-600 017. Pan: Aakpy-9845-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Mr. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Mr. Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06.03.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17.03.2025

For Appellant: Mr. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. AR.V. Sreenivasan, CIT
Section 122Section 2(47)Section 250Section 45Section 47

Lower Authorities with reference to gift and settlement was not appropriate. The Tribunal was of the opinion that for the purpose of Section 49(1)(1) of the Act, there was no difference between gift and settlement and that in the instant case, the settlement made with the assessee

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Bareilly vs. Wave Distilleries and Breweries Limited, Bareilly

Appeals of the Department stand dismissed

ITA 153/LKW/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow28 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: S/Shri Salil Kapoor, Vibhu Jain and Sumit Lalchandani, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Smt. Richa Rastogi, CIT (DR)
Section 115JSection 148

escaped assessment for the AY 2013-14. The escaped income being above Rs. One Lakh is covered by the provisions of section 49(1) (b) of the 1.T. Act, 1961. Further in view of decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Larsen & Toubro Ltd. Civil

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)

acquires any capital asset under a gift or will without incurring any cost of acquisition, there would be no capital gains liability. However, section 49(1)(ii) provides that in the case of an assessee acquiring an asset under a gift or will, the cost of acquisition of the asset ... borne by the previous owner or the assessee as the case may be. Thus, on account of the deeming fiction contained in section 49(1)(ii ), gains arising on transfer of a capital asset acquired by the assessee under a gift or will would arise. In such a case

Incometax Officer, Ward-3(3), Visakhapatnam vs. Saripalli Vimala Devi, Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 294/VIZ/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.294/Viz/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year : 2015-16) Income Tax Officer - Ward-3(3) Vs. Saripalli Vimala Devi Iind Floor Flat No. 103, Sun N Sea Apartments East Point Colony Infinity Towers Visakhapatnam - 530017 Shankarmatam Road, Santhipuram Visakhapatnam - 530016 Pan: Bddps0883J (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधर्थी की ओरसे/ Assessee By : Sri C. Kameswara Rao, Ar प्रत्यधर्थीकीओरसे/ Revenue By : Dr. Satyasai Rath, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Sri C. Kameswara Rao, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Satyasai Rath, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 48

that the capital asset had become the property of the assessee by succession or inheritance on the death of the previous owner under section 49(1) and the cost of acquisition of the asset is to be deemed to be the cost for which the previous owner acquired

Shri Deepak Suresh Gadge, Nagpur vs. Dy. CIT, Circle-1, Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee partly allowed

ITA 23/NAG/2018[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur28 Nov 2024AY 2013-2014

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

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. MoryaniFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 234A

acquisition of the property by the partner, the legislature had covered in the cases of dissolution of a partnership firm. The provisions of section 49(1)(ii)(b) of the Act conspicuously omits the expression ‗otherwise‘ though it covers ‗distribution of assets on the dissolution of firm‘. In other words

Dow Chemical International Private Limited, Thane vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax - 14(1)(2), Mumbai

ITA 3772/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Rajan VoraFor Respondent: Ms. Rajeshwari Menon, Sr. AR /
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 32

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL

Dow Chemicals International Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Ta-14(1)(2), Mumbai

ITA 1200/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Rajan VoraFor Respondent: Ms. Rajeshwari Menon, Sr. AR /
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 32

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL