← 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)

The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Suzlon Energy Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result the Ground Nos

ITA 303/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

Besides the case laws relied upon by the assessee are distinguished on facts supra. • The intricacies of fifth proviso to section 32(1), section 49(1)(iii)(e). Explanation 7 to section 43(1) and/or Explanation 2(b) to section 43(6)(c) and section 55(2)(a)(ii) have

The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Suzlon Energy Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result the Ground Nos

ITA 302/AHD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

Besides the case laws relied upon by the assessee are distinguished on facts supra. • The intricacies of fifth proviso to section 32(1), section 49(1)(iii)(e). Explanation 7 to section 43(1) and/or Explanation 2(b) to section 43(6)(c) and section 55(2)(a)(ii) have

Suzlon Energy Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result the Ground Nos

ITA 199/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

Besides the case laws relied upon by the assessee are distinguished on facts supra. • The intricacies of fifth proviso to section 32(1), section 49(1)(iii)(e). Explanation 7 to section 43(1) and/or Explanation 2(b) to section 43(6)(c) and section 55(2)(a)(ii) have

Suzlon Energy Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result the Ground Nos

ITA 198/AHD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

Besides the case laws relied upon by the assessee are distinguished on facts supra. • The intricacies of fifth proviso to section 32(1), section 49(1)(iii)(e). Explanation 7 to section 43(1) and/or Explanation 2(b) to section 43(6)(c) and section 55(2)(a)(ii) have

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

Explanation 7 to Section 43(1), (iii) Explanation 2(b) to Section 43(6)(c), (iv) Section 55(2)(a)(ii) and (v) Section 49(1)(iii)(e) relied upon by the Assessing Officer for disallowing the claim of depreciation related to assets transferred in AIA Engineering Ltd - Cross Appeals ... Explanation 7 to Section 43(1), (iii) Explanation 2(b) to Section 43(6)(c), (iv) Section 55(2)(a)(ii) and (v) Section 49(1)(iii)(e), as noted above, the assessee was not entitled to any depreciation on the same. AIA Engineering Ltd - Cross Appeals

Federation of Rajasthan Trade and Industry, Jaipur vs. ITO-Exemption Ward-2, Jaipur

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

ITA 217/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Pandya (Adv.) &For Respondent: Shri Anoop Singh (Addl.CIT) a
Section 127Section 12ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

cost incurred for purchase/acquisition of tenancy rights and accordingly took cost of acquisition at nil Whether case of assessee fell under section 49(1)(iii)(a) and once capital asset in question became property of assessee as per section 49(1)(iii)(a) and previous owner acquired property prior

Rajani Prakash Kashid, Kolhapur vs. ITO, Ward 1(4), Kolhapur

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 608/PUN/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Oct 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri A.D. Kulkarni
Section 142(1)Section 148Section 2

there is no question of capital gain on transfer of such land. More so because it does not fall in specified items under section 49(1) (i to iv) of the Act. Accordingly, the same is not liable for capital gain. The Assessing Officer is directed accordingly.” 11. Based

Shuvro Chattaraj, Kolkata vs. PCIT, Burdwan

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

ITA 226/KOL/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Jain, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Subhendu Datta, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54E

capital gains on long term capital asset only. The asset was acquired in 1998 and gifted to the assessee in 2011. As per section 49(1), the cost of acquisition and period of holding of the donor are considered in the hands of donee. Thus the Ld. PCIT erred ... after reducing the cost of acquisition. The cost of acquisition in the case of gifted property is governed by section 49(1) of the Act. Since, the agreement dated 03.11.2011 and the subsequent unregistered agreement dated 10.02.2012 with M/s R.K. Construction, a proprietary concern of Dr. Malaya Mukherjee, could

Shreeyans Kumar Godha, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward 6(4), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 698/JPR/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Aug 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Rajeev Sogani, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Anoop Singh (Addl. CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 43CSection 45(2)Section 49(1)Section 50C

facts in upholding the learned Assessing Officer's action of not deducting full purchase price of the land according to the provisions of section 49(1) and also not considering the cost of improvement and development of land while determining the taxable income from transactions of sale of land (treating

Ashish, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle Intl. Taxation 1(3)(1), New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed with consequential effects

ITA 2145/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2020-21 Ashish, Vs Acit, E-138, Kalka Ji, Circle Int. Taxation 1(3)(1), New Delhi – 110 019. New Delhi. Pan: Ahipg5987B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms Chinu Bhasin, Ca & Shri Sagar Rajpoot, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 25.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.07.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm:

For Appellant: Ms Chinu Bhasin, CA &For Respondent: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

such asset and the indexation shall be allowed accordingly from the year of acquisition by the previous owner. .Further reliance is placed on section 49(1) of the Act, also provides that in such cases the cost of acquisition of the asset shall be deemed to be the cost

JCIT Spl. Range- 12, New Delhi vs. Shalu Walia, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1331/DEL/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Dec 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

Section 143(2)Section 2Section 54Section 56(2)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, ‘G’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI CHALLA

ACIT-2(2)(1), Mmumbai vs. M/S. Jics Logistic Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year

ITA 1781/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 &

For Appellant: Mr. Satyaprakash Singh

goodwill arising out of amalgamation, section, viz., 5th proviso to goodwill arising out of amalgamation, section, viz., 5th proviso to section 32 (1), section 49(1)(iii)(e), Explanation 7 to section 43(1) section 32 (1), section 49(1)(iii)(e), Explanation 7 to section 43(1) section ... 1), section 49(1)(iii)(e), Explanation 7 to section 43(1) and/or Explanation 2(b) to section 43(6)(c) and section 55(2)(a)(ii) were not Explanation 2(b) to section 43(6)(c) and section 55(2)(a)(ii) were not Explanation 2(b) to section

ACIT-2(2)(1), Mmumbai vs. M/S. Jics Logistic Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year

ITA 1780/MUM/2023[2016-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2023AY 2016-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 &

For Appellant: Mr. Satyaprakash Singh

goodwill arising out of amalgamation, section, viz., 5th proviso to goodwill arising out of amalgamation, section, viz., 5th proviso to section 32 (1), section 49(1)(iii)(e), Explanation 7 to section 43(1) section 32 (1), section 49(1)(iii)(e), Explanation 7 to section 43(1) section ... 1), section 49(1)(iii)(e), Explanation 7 to section 43(1) and/or Explanation 2(b) to section 43(6)(c) and section 55(2)(a)(ii) were not Explanation 2(b) to section 43(6)(c) and section 55(2)(a)(ii) were not Explanation 2(b) to section

ACIT-2(2)(1), Mmumbai vs. M/S. Jics Logistic Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year

ITA 1779/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 &

For Appellant: Mr. Satyaprakash Singh

goodwill arising out of amalgamation, section, viz., 5th proviso to goodwill arising out of amalgamation, section, viz., 5th proviso to section 32 (1), section 49(1)(iii)(e), Explanation 7 to section 43(1) section 32 (1), section 49(1)(iii)(e), Explanation 7 to section 43(1) section ... 1), section 49(1)(iii)(e), Explanation 7 to section 43(1) and/or Explanation 2(b) to section 43(6)(c) and section 55(2)(a)(ii) were not Explanation 2(b) to section 43(6)(c) and section 55(2)(a)(ii) were not Explanation 2(b) to section

ACIT-2(2)(1), Mmumbai vs. M/S. Jics Logistic Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year

ITA 1764/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 &

For Appellant: Mr. Satyaprakash Singh

goodwill arising out of amalgamation, section, viz., 5th proviso to goodwill arising out of amalgamation, section, viz., 5th proviso to section 32 (1), section 49(1)(iii)(e), Explanation 7 to section 43(1) section 32 (1), section 49(1)(iii)(e), Explanation 7 to section 43(1) section ... 1), section 49(1)(iii)(e), Explanation 7 to section 43(1) and/or Explanation 2(b) to section 43(6)(c) and section 55(2)(a)(ii) were not Explanation 2(b) to section 43(6)(c) and section 55(2)(a)(ii) were not Explanation 2(b) to section

ACIT-2(2)(1), Mmumbai vs. M/S. Jics Logistic Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year

ITA 1763/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 &

For Appellant: Mr. Satyaprakash Singh

goodwill arising out of amalgamation, section, viz., 5th proviso to goodwill arising out of amalgamation, section, viz., 5th proviso to section 32 (1), section 49(1)(iii)(e), Explanation 7 to section 43(1) section 32 (1), section 49(1)(iii)(e), Explanation 7 to section 43(1) section ... 1), section 49(1)(iii)(e), Explanation 7 to section 43(1) and/or Explanation 2(b) to section 43(6)(c) and section 55(2)(a)(ii) were not Explanation 2(b) to section 43(6)(c) and section 55(2)(a)(ii) were not Explanation 2(b) to section

ACIT-2(2)(1), Mmumbai vs. M/S. Jics Logistic Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year

ITA 1762/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 &

For Appellant: Mr. Satyaprakash Singh

goodwill arising out of amalgamation, section, viz., 5th proviso to goodwill arising out of amalgamation, section, viz., 5th proviso to section 32 (1), section 49(1)(iii)(e), Explanation 7 to section 43(1) section 32 (1), section 49(1)(iii)(e), Explanation 7 to section 43(1) section ... 1), section 49(1)(iii)(e), Explanation 7 to section 43(1) and/or Explanation 2(b) to section 43(6)(c) and section 55(2)(a)(ii) were not Explanation 2(b) to section 43(6)(c) and section 55(2)(a)(ii) were not Explanation 2(b) to section

ACIT-2(2)(1), Mmumbai vs. M/S. Jics Logistic Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year

ITA 1761/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 &

For Appellant: Mr. Satyaprakash Singh

goodwill arising out of amalgamation, section, viz., 5th proviso to goodwill arising out of amalgamation, section, viz., 5th proviso to section 32 (1), section 49(1)(iii)(e), Explanation 7 to section 43(1) section 32 (1), section 49(1)(iii)(e), Explanation 7 to section 43(1) section ... 1), section 49(1)(iii)(e), Explanation 7 to section 43(1) and/or Explanation 2(b) to section 43(6)(c) and section 55(2)(a)(ii) were not Explanation 2(b) to section 43(6)(c) and section 55(2)(a)(ii) were not Explanation 2(b) to section

ACIT-2(2)(1), Mmumbai vs. M/S. Jics Logistic Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year

ITA 1760/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 &

For Appellant: Mr. Satyaprakash Singh

goodwill arising out of amalgamation, section, viz., 5th proviso to goodwill arising out of amalgamation, section, viz., 5th proviso to section 32 (1), section 49(1)(iii)(e), Explanation 7 to section 43(1) section 32 (1), section 49(1)(iii)(e), Explanation 7 to section 43(1) section ... 1), section 49(1)(iii)(e), Explanation 7 to section 43(1) and/or Explanation 2(b) to section 43(6)(c) and section 55(2)(a)(ii) were not Explanation 2(b) to section 43(6)(c) and section 55(2)(a)(ii) were not Explanation 2(b) to section

Kartar Singh, Rohtak vs. ACIT, Circle- 42(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 3268/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Sept 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 3268/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Kartar Singh, Vs Acit, C/O S.K. Bansal, Ca, Circle-42(1), 101, First Floor, Kochar Market, New Delhi-11 Jhajjar Road, Opp. Khanu Mandi, Rohtak, Haryana-12001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Cskps5940K Assessee By : None Revenue By : Sh. Amit Katoch, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 19.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 05.09.2023 Order Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Katoch, Sr. DR
Section 49(1)Section 54B

which case cost of acquisition in the hands of last previous owner is to be taken as per Explanation to section 49(1). But neither the last previous owner nor the date of acquisition in the hands of last previous owner is known, hence no cost of acquisition