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

Seshank Mahadev, Chennai vs. Deputy Director of Income Tax, CPC Bengaluru

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

ITA 2274/CHNY/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Oct 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2274/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2024-25 Seshank Mahadev, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ak 27, Tas Enclave, E2, Golden King Corporate Ward 3(1), Villa Apartments, Anna Nagar, Chennai. Chennai 600 040. [Pan:Olwps5532Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Varadharajan, F/O Of Assessee ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri C.P. Solomon, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 22.10.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24.10.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 02.06.2025 Passed By The Addl./Jcit(A), Indore For The Assessment Year 2024-25. 2. At The Outset, We Note That The Cpc Denied The Rebate Claimed By The Assessee Under Section 87A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] Vide Intimation Order Under Section 143(1) Of The Act Dated 12.11.2024. Against The Intimation Order, The Assessee Preferred An 2

For Appellant: Shri Varadharajan, F/o of assesseeFor Respondent: Shri C.P. Solomon, JCIT
Section 111ASection 112ASection 115BSection 143(1)Section 250Section 3Section 87A

Hreyansh Vasundhara Family Trust, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(1), Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1793/PUN/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1793/Pun/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2021-22 Hreyansh Vasundhara Family Trust, S. No. 1A, F-1, Irani Market Compound, Yerwada, Pune – 411006 Vs. Ito, Ward-7(1), Pune Pan : Aabth8220Q अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri C.H. Naniwadekar Department By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 18-06-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 26-06-2025 आदेश / Order Per Astha Chandra, Jm : The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 18.07.2024 Of The Ld. Additional/Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Vadodara [“Addl./Jcit(A)"] Pertaining To Assessment Year ("Ay") 2021-22. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : "In The Fact & The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Addl/Joint Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) -(A)2 Vadodara, Erred In Confirming The Variance In The Intimation U/S 143(1) Made By Cpc In Respect Of The Rate Of Surcharge & Erred: 1. In Not Adjudicating & Hence Confirming That The Ao Cpc Has Power To Vary The Rate Of Surcharge While Processing The Return U/S 143(1). 2. In Holding That In The Case Of The Appellant Provisions Of Section 167B Rws 2(29C) Are Applicable & Therefore The Appellant Is Subjected To Taxation At The Highest Slab Of Income Tax (Including Surcharge) As Applicable For The Given Ay Which Is 37% Surcharge In The Case Of The Appellant For The Given Ay.

For Appellant: Shri C.H. NaniwadekarFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 111ASection 143(1)Section 167BSection 2