“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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

M/S Indofil Industries Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT (A)-26, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2291/MUM/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2023AY 2009-10

Section 143(3)

purchase and hence not a demerger as defined in section 2 (19AA). Demerger is covered by Section 47 (vib) but the provisions of Section 49(1)(iii)(e), as they stood at the relevant time, did not cover such transactions and hence do not apply to the case

Pramod Kasliwal, Jaipur vs. ITO WD. 6(2), Bhagwan Dass Road, Jaipur

Appeals of the assessee are allowed statistically

ITA 388/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Jaipur02 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Ld. Cit/Nfac.

For Appellant: Sh. Pramod Patni (CA)For Respondent: Sh. A. S. Nehra (Addl.CIT) a

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 2Section 49(1)Section 54

provides that where the capital asset became the property of the assessee by any of the modes specified under Section 49(1) of the Act (viz. under a Gift or Will), not only the cost of improvement incurred by the assessee but also the cost of improvement incurred ... question of deducting the cost of improvement incurred by the previous owner in the case of an assessee covered under Section 49(1) of the Act would arise only if the period for which the asset was held by the previous owner is included in determining the period for which

Pramod Kasliwal, Jaipur vs. ITO WD. 6(2), New Central Revenue Building, Bhagwan Dass Road, Jaipur 302005

Appeals of the assessee are allowed statistically

ITA 387/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Jaipur02 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Ld. Cit/Nfac.

For Appellant: Sh. Pramod Patni (CA)For Respondent: Sh. A. S. Nehra (Addl.CIT) a

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 2Section 49(1)Section 54

Mahavir Ghar Sansar Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 1(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 141/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 141/Mum/2022 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Ito-1(1)(1), Mahavir Ghar Sansar Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Private Limited, बिधम/ Road, Mumbai-400 020 19 Raj Mahal, 84, Veer Vs. Nariman Road, Mumbai-400 020 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaacs7170C (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : None प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Mahita Nair, Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 22.08.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 18.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Impugned Order Dated 01.12.2021, Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Quantum Of Assessment Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 263 For Ay 2015-16. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Mahita Nair, Ld. DR

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 32(1)(ii)

noted that the decision in Smifs Securities which was without considering the provisions-5th 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) which were relevant

Kabir Tripat Oberoi, Mumbai vs. The Pr. CIT -20, Mumbai

In the result, assessee's appeal stands allowed

ITA 685/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

Section 143(3)Section 2Section 263Section 49(1)

Property Income tax Act, for the purpose of determination of period of Holding for the transfer of assets covered under Section 49(1), there shall be included the period for which the asset was held by the previous owner Cost of Acquisitions as per Section Cost of acquisition to previous

Kapil Tripat Oberoi, Mumbai vs. The Pr. CIT -20, Mumbai

In the result, assessee's appeal stands allowed

ITA 684/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

Section 143(3)Section 2Section 263Section 49(1)

Shri. Seshatalpa Sai Boddupalli, Mumbai vs. ITO-23(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands allowed statistical purposes

ITA 4168/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jan 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahyai.T.A. No. 4168/Mum/2019 (Assessment Year 2010-11) Vs. Ito-23(3)(3) Seshatalpa Sai Boddupalli A-11, Sunil Tulsiram Chs, Room No.-118, Matru Devidayal Nagar, Mulund(W) Mandir, Tardeo Road Mumbai-400 080 Mumbai-400 007 Pan : Aaipb1894M (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 49(1)Section 80C

considering that the Appellant had acquired the property under a will from his father and therefore as per the provisions of Section 49(1), he cost of acquisition of previous owner I becomes cost of acquisition of the Appellant and the period of holding of the previous owner

Surender, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-43(2), New Delhi

Appeal is disposed off in

ITA 23/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jan 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Passing The Assessment Order. 6. That The Appellant Craves Leave To Modify/Amend Or Add Any One Or More Grounds.”

Section 49(1)

passed by Ld. AO is bad in law and not based on facts. 2. That A.O has not correctly applied the provision of Section 49(1). 3. That the Appeal order passed by Ld. CIT(A) is bad in law and is not based on facts. Surender

Avtar Singh Dheeran, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 66(5), New Delhi

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

ITA 403/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jun 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2014-15 Avtar Singh Dheeran, Vs Ito, C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, Ward-66(5), G-26/124, Sector-7, New Delhi. Rohini, New Delhi. Pan: Aaipd8887G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kapil Goel, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Rajesh Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 20.04.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.06.2021 Order

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Sr. DR

regards the issue of deduction of Rs 5,50,000/-on account of transfer charges it may be mentioned that as per section 49(1 )(iii)(a) of IT Act the cost of acquisition of asset will be increased by the cost of any improvement of the asset incurred ... expenditure which may have qualitatively improved the assets. Therefore, the claim of the assessee was prima facie not covered under the provisions of section 49(1)(iii)(a) of IT . Act, 1961. As regards the another issue of not allowing the benefit of cost of construction/indexed cost of construction