“Section 48(1)”

Section References (mined)Section 48Section 48(1)17 judgments

COFFEEDAY TRADING LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 1172/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Ms. Mega , Ld. CA/ARFor Respondent: Shri Balusamy N, Ld. JCIT D.R

transfer. This is an expenditure incurred directly in connection with the transfer of share of M/s. Mindtree Ltd and allowable under the provisions section 48(1) of the act. The professional charges so paid to M/s Kotak Mahindra Capital Co., Ltd was Rs.5.34.77.600/-, This professional charges is over a gross ... transfer of shares and held the same were not incurred ‘wholly’ and ‘exclusively’, in connection with transfer of shares under the provisions of section 48(1) of the Act and the reasoning given by the Assessee before the AO to substantiate its claim, was not found justified

INCOMETAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM vs. SURENDRA NATH GUBBALA, VISAKHAPATNAM

ITA 482/VIZ/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam10 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Us:

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 48

land vacated. It was held that the amount paid to tenants was allowable as deduction in computing capital gains under section 48 (1) of the Act. The same view was taken in CIT Vs. Shakuntala Rajeshwar (1986) 160 ITR 840 (Del). 5.14 In the case of CIT Vs. Eagle Theatres ... encumbrance, which was absolutely necessary to effect the transfer of the subject property, was beyond doubt an expenditure covered by clause (i) of Section 48(1) of the Act. Our aforesaid view is supported by the following judicial pronouncements: (A). Smt. A. Rita Vs. CIT (2025) 173 taxmann

SUBHLAXMI GURUNATH KAMAT,SINDHUDURG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, KUDAL

ITA 1795/PUN/2025[A.Y.2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Sept 2025

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.1795/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Subhlaxmi Gurunath Kamat, V The Income Tax Officer, 308, Kalasewadi, Banda S Ward-1, Kudal, S.O.(Sindhudurg), Banda, Sindhudurg. Sindhudurg – 416510. Pan: Cmwpk9642J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Pramod S Shingte Revenue By Shri Aviyogi Ambadkar– Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 10/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 25/09/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2018-19 Dated 06.05.2025 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 147 R.W.S 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 06.03.2023. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 48(1)Section 50C

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण ”बी” न्यायपीठ पुणेमें। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “B” :: PUNE BEFORE DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE

DCIT CEN CIR 1(4), MUMBAI vs. GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue and the assessee are partly allowed, and the additional ground of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 4069/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistry – Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta - CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 260ASection 43BSection 45Section 801ASection 801A(4)

revenue’s appeal stands allowed. In relation to Ground No.9 - Disallowance of expenses incurred on transfer of Vikram Ispat Unit under section 48(1) of the Act amounting to Rs.6,21,79,879/-. Expenditure incurred of on transfer of Vikram Ispat Unit as business expenditure: (Revenue) Grasim Industries

GRASIM INDUSTRIES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CC-1(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue and the assessee are partly allowed,\nand the additional ground of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2897/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 260ASection 43BSection 45Section 801ASection 801A(4)

revenue's appeal stands allowed.\n\nIn relation to Ground No.9 - Disallowance of expenses incurred on transfer of\nVikram Ispat Unit under section 48(1) of the Act amounting to Rs.6,21,79,879/-.\nExpenditure incurred of on transfer of Vikram Ispat Unit as business expenditure:\n(Revenue

FARHEEZ ERUCH AGA,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-9(1), PUNE, PUNE

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

ITA 1870/PUN/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune02 Sept 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Kishor PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde

Section 133(6)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND MS. ASTHA

POLYCAB INDIA LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 5(2), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4673/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 115Section 237Section 9

Acts of Parliament. Further, income of Reserve Bank of India is also exempted from the purview of Income Tax Act by virtue of Section 48(1) of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 which states as under:- “1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Income

POLYCAB INDIA LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 5(2), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4671/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 115Section 237Section 9

ITO, WARD-1(1), HYDERABAD vs. ARKA PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 58/HYD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.58/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16) Income Tax Officer Vs. Arka Properties (P) Ltd Ward 1 (1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aafca7411H (Appellant) (Respondent) राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. M. Narmada, Cit(Dr) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate H Srinivasulu, सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 27/03/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 17/04/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothis Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated, 23/11/2023 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac Delhi, For The A.Y. 2015-16. 2. There Is A Delay Of 1 Day By The Revenue In Filing The Appeal Before The Tribunal & The Revenue Has Filed An Affidavit Explaining The Cause Of Delay. We Have Heard The Learned Dr As Well As The Learned Ar On The Condonation Of Delay. The Learned Ar Has Not Objected For Condonation Of Delay Of One Day In Filing

For Appellant: Advocate H SrinivasuluFor Respondent: : Smt. M. Narmada, CIT(DR)

Section 148Section 45

clear the title therefore, the same is an expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively in connection with the transfer as per the provisions of section 48(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961. The learned CIT (A) has decided this issue in para 6.3.2 to 6.5.2 as under: Page

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-CENTRAL CIRCLE5(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S. LARSEN & TOUBRO LIMITED ( FORMERLY KNOWN AS L & T SHIPBUILDING LIMITED ), MUMBAI

ITA 2350/MUM/2023[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2024AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year: 2016-17 Dy. Commissioner Of M/S. Larsen & Toubro Income Tax, Limited (Formerly Known Central Circle-5(4), As L & T Shipbuilding Room No.1927, 19Th Floor, Limited), Vs. Air India Building, L&T House, Nariman Point, N.M. Marg, Mumbai - 400021 Ballard Estate, Mumbai – 400 001 Pan: Aaacl0140P (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra, D.R

Section 48(1)Section 50B

whether: “The lease rental expenses are related to the transfer of slump sale business while computing the capital gain under section 48(1) of the Act” 10. To understand the issue we have persued para 5.8 of the scheme of arrangement between L & T Shipbuilding Limited (demerged company) and Marine

CPI INDIA I LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, INT.TAX. CIRCLE-1(2)(1), DELHI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed, as indicated

ITA 382/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Nov 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Vice- & Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice-Assessment Year: 2016-17 . Cpi India Ltd., Vs. Acit, C/O- Vasa Chauhan & International Taxation, Associates Off. No. 41, Circle -1(2)1), 3Rd Floor, High Life Premises, Delhi P.M. Road, Santacruz West, Mumbai Pan :Aadcc1505G (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 112(1)(c)Section 144C(13)Section 147Section 148Section 48Section 48(1)

Assessing Officer ultimately disallowed assessee’s computation of net long-term capital loss by applying the provisions to the first proviso to section 48(1) read with Rule 115A. Thus, ultimately, he held that the assessee had net long-term capital gain of Rs.141,28,52,811/-, which is subject

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SMT. SARASWATI DALMIA, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 4268/DEL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2006-07 Dy. Commissioner Of Income- Vs. Mr. Gun Nidhi Dalmia, Tax, Circle-31(1), 27, Akbar Road, New Delhi New Delhi Pan :Aacpd8352N (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2006-07 Acit, Vs. Smt. Saraswati Dalmia, Circle-31(1), 27, Akbar Road, New Delhi New Delhi Pan :Aahpd8884E (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 48Section 48(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘C’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI M

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. MR. GUN NIDHI DALMIA,, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 3776/DEL/2009[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2023AY 2006-07

Section 48Section 48(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘C’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI M

ANIL BHAGWAN ADVANI,MUMBAI vs. ITO (IT) 1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4385/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Sh. Tapas MisraFor Respondent: Smt. Shailja Rai, CIT-DR

Section 154Section 251(1)Section 45(5)(b)Section 48Section 55A

order giving effect to Ld. CIT (A) order dated 14 August 2015, it was directed by ld. Ld. CIT (A) that deduction under section 48(1) of the Act is to be restricted to the extent of actual legal expenses mentioned (supra). 27. Further the said sum received from ... payments made to Mr. Kishore Mansukhani is to be treated as “diversion of income by overriding title”, hence, allowable as deduction under section 48(1) of the Act. 31. In the result, appeal of the assessee vide ITA No. 4385/Mum/2015 is allowed. ITA No. 4772/Mum/2015 by Revenue 32. Ground

LEILA ADVANI,MUMBAI vs. ACIT - 16(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2270/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Sh. Tapas MishraFor Respondent: Smt. Shailja Rai, CIT-DR

Section 143Section 143(2)Section 45(5)(b)Section 48Section 48(1)Section 54F

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “A”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL

M/S. SASKEN TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE - 6, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2546/BANG/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Mar 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Sasken Technologies Limited, Vs. Jcit, No.139/25, Ring Road, Domlur, Special Range – 6, Bengaluru-560071. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaecs 6424 R Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Padam Chand Khincha, Ca Respondent By : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 09.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.03.2022 O R D E R Per N.V. Vasudevanthis Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 27.11.2019 Of Cit(A), Bengaluru -10, Relating To Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Ground No.1 Raised By The Assessee Is General & Calls For No Specific Adjudication. Grounds Nos.2 & 3 Raised By The Assessee Is With Regard To The Issue Whether The Gain On Sale / Assignment Of Intellectual Property Rights (Ipr) Is Assessable To Tax At All & If So Assessable To Tax Whether It Has To Be Assessed To Tax Under The Head “Income From Business Or Profession” Or “Capital Gain”. Page 2 Of 31

For Appellant: Shri. Padam Chand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 1

cannot be applied must be regarded as never intended by section 45 to be the subject of the charge. What is contemplated by section 48(1) is an asset in the acquisition of which it is possible to envisage a cost. It must be an asset which possesses the inherent

STANDARD INDUSTRIES LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-3 (3), MUMBAI , MUMBAI

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

ITA 6329/MUM/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Amarjit Singh () Assessment Year: 2007-08 Standard Industries Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of Income 59, 1St Floor, The Arcade, World Vs. Tax, Circle-3(3), Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Colaba, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400 005. Pan No. Aabcs 8888 C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Ketan Ved, Ar Revenue By : Mr. B.K. Bagchi, Dr Date Of Hearing : 09/02/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28/02/2022

For Appellant: Mr. Ketan Ved, ARFor Respondent: Mr. B.K. Bagchi, DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 48(1)

fees cannot be considered as incurred wholly and exclusively in connection with the transfer Standard Industries Ltd. 4 as per the provision of section 48(1) of the Act. The assessee has made payment of ₹33,67,200/- for architectural services to the architect vide invoice dated 8th July