Section 111A of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.196

Section 111A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 corresponds to section 196 (Tax on short-term capital gains in certain cases) of the Income-tax Act, 2025.

Read section 196 of the 2025 Act

Correspondence checked against the ICAI tabular mapping of the two Acts and the BharatTax.co section commentary.

The decision most relied on for Section 111A is CIT v. J.H. Gotla (156 ITR 323), cited in 176 of the 279 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 111A

CIT v. J.H. Gotla
156 ITR 323 · 1985 · Supreme Court
176
citing judgments

The Supreme Court holds that for income tax purposes, the term 'income' includes 'loss,' allowing for the set-off of a spouse's or minor child's business losses when their income is clubbed with the assessee. This decision emphasizes interpreting tax statutes, especially benevolent provisions, by considering the legislative scheme over a strict literal construction.

Andhra Pradesh in CIT v. Smt. Nayana P. Dedhia
270 ITR 572 · 2004 · High Court
82
citing judgments

Guidelines issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) under Section 119 of the Income Tax Act, which relax the rigour of law, are binding on all income tax officers responsible for implementing the Act, who must follow these orders and instructions.

CIT v. H. Holck Larsen
160 ITR 67 · 1986 · Supreme Court
58
citing judgments

The determination of whether a transaction involving the sale and purchase of shares (or other assets) constitutes a trading transaction (business income) or an investment (capital gains) is a mixed question of law and fact. Courts must consider cumulative factors, including the assessee's habitual dealing and the intention at the time of the initial acquisition, rather than applying abstract tests.

CIT v. Manmohan Das
59 ITR 699 · 1966 · Supreme Court
47
citing judgments

The eligibility for an assessee to carry forward and set off losses, including capital losses, against future income is determined by the Assessing Officer in the year the set-off is claimed, not in the year the loss was incurred.

Amal Kumar Ghosh v. Asstt. CIT
361 ITR 458 · 2014 · High Court
39
citing judgments

The selection of cases for scrutiny must be completed within the time prescribed by CBDT instructions. The department is bound by its own standards and cannot act with discrimination or selectively apply them.

292 ITR 416(SC) Galileo Nederland BV v. Assistant Director of Income-tax, Circle-i(2), (Intl. Tax), New Delhi
367 ITR 319 · 2014 · High Court
28
citing judgments

The principle of consistency requires that the Assessing Officer or First Appellate Authority must follow decisions made in earlier years, unless there are good and sufficient reasons to deviate. An assessee's status should not be altered arbitrarily without assigning reasons or distinguishing facts.

Premises Cooperative Society Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer
320 ITR 414 · 2010 · High Court
26
citing judgments

Interest income earned by a cooperative society on deposits with a cooperative bank is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). The decision in Mittal Court Premises Cooperative Society Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer (2010) 320 ITR 414, which considered the Supreme Court's ruling in Totagar Cooperative Sale Society Ltd., establishes this.

JCIT v. Montgomery Emerging Marketing Funds,\n
100 ITD 217 · 2006 · ITAT
23
citing judgments

Each transaction can be considered a separate source of income, allowing taxpayers to choose between the Income-tax Act and a Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) for each transaction. Section 70(2) of the Act does not prescribe an order for setting off specific short-term capital losses against specific short-term capital gains, favouring the taxpayer in interpretation.

Araadhya Jain Trust v. ITO
173 Taxmann.com 343 · 2025 · ITAT
22
citing judgments

The definition of maximum marginal rate under section 2(29C) can be interpreted to determine the applicable surcharge rates, particularly for income including dividends, as per the First Schedule to the Finance Act. This affects how surcharge is calculated on taxable income.

ITO v. Tayal Sales Corporation
1 SOT 579 · 2003 · ITAT
18
citing judgments

The maximum marginal rate (MMR) of income tax is applied, and surcharge is levied separately if applicable. Surcharge is not leviable if the quantum of income is below a certain threshold.

Judgments on Section 111A

Pooja Biyani, Surat vs. ITO Ward 1(3)(1), Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 468/SRT/2026[2024-2025]Status: DisposedITAT Surat07 Aug 2026AY 2024-2025

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 468/Srt/2026 [ िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2024-25 ] Pooja Biyani, Income Tax Officer, 203 Deenbandhu Awas, Opp. Ward 1(3)1, Surat Vs. Amardeep Apptt Nr. Uma Bhavan Aaykar Bhawan, Majuragate, Bhatar Road Surat, Gujarat-395007 Surat, Gujarat 395007 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aelpb3036N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Rajesh Malani, Ca Respondent By : Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 14/05/2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 07/08/2026 :: आदेश/Order :: Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2024-25, Is Directed Against The Order Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) By National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Dated 30.01.2026, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Dated 25.07.2025 U/S 154 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows: “1. General Ground: The Order Passed By The Hon'Ble Jcit(A) Is Bad In Law & On Facts & Is Liable To Be Quashed. 2. Failure To Adjudicate On Merits: The Hon'Ble Jcit(A) Erred In Dismissing The Appeal Without Adjudicating The Legality Of Denial Of Rebate Under Section 87A & Without Examining The Correctness Of The Order Passed Under Section 154. 3. Misapplication Of Section 154: The Hon'Ble Jcit(A) Erred In Holding That The Issue Is Debatable & Therefore Rectification Under Section 154 Was Not Permissible, Without Appreciating That:

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Malani, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. DR
Section 111ASection 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 250Section 87A

Jigna Nehal Mehta, Rajkot vs. Income Tax Officer-Ward -1(2)(4), Rajkot

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 891/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot31 Jul 2026AY 2024-25

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 891/Rjt/2026 [ िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2024-25 ] Jigna Nehal Mehta, Income Tax Officer, Flat No.512, Prabhat Complex-2, Ward-1(2)(4), बनाम Harilal Gosalia Road, Nr. Shroff Aykar Bhavan, Race Course Ring /Vs. Road, Rajkot, Gujarat-360001 Road, Rajkot, Gujarat-360001 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aqfpm7786C (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri R. D. Lalchandani, Ld. Ar राज" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Shishir Kumar, Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 30/07/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31/07/2026 :: आदेश /Order :: Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am : Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2024-25, Is Directed Against The Order Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 29.04.2026 By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi/ Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [In Short ‘Ld.Cit(A)’], Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S. 143(1) Of The Act Dated 19.12.2025. 2. When This Appeal Was Called Out For Hearing, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Invited My Attention Towards The Decision Of The Hon’Ble Itat, Rajkot Bench In The Case Of Kiritkumar Champaklal Bhagat In Ita No.879/Rjt/2025 For Ay 2024-25, Vide Order Dated 20.03.2026. The Ld.

For Appellant: Shri R. D. Lalchandani, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Shishir Kumar, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 111ASection 112ASection 112A(6)Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 250Section 87A