Section 112 of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.197

Section 112 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 corresponds to section 197 (Tax on long-term capital gains) of the Income-tax Act, 2025.

Read section 197 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 112 is CIT v. Ace Builders (P) Ltd. (281 ITR 210), cited in 88 of the 158 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 112

CIT v. Ace Builders (P) Ltd.
281 ITR 210 · 2005 · High Court
88
citing judgments

The deeming fiction in Section 50, which treats capital gains from depreciable assets as short-term, applies only for the purpose of computing capital gains under that section. For other provisions, such as set-off of losses under Section 74 or deductions under Section 54E/54EC, the asset's original character (long-term or short-term) is to be considered.

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.

Katira Construction Ltd. v. UOI
31 Taxmann.com 250 · 2013 · High Court
77
citing judgments

A person entering into a works contract with an enterprise eligible for deduction under Section 80-IA is not entitled to claim the tax benefit under Section 80-IA of the Act.

Joint Commissioner. 10. In Shin Etsu Chemical Co. Ltd. v. Aksh Optifibre Ltd.
7 SCC 234 · 2005 · Reported
75
citing judgments

A statute prescribing a procedure using negative language (e.g., 'in no other manner') imposes absolute requirements, and failure to comply will invalidate the entire proceeding.

ITO v. Bachu Lal Kapoor
60 ITR 74 · 1966 · Supreme Court
60
citing judgments

Income must be charged only once, preventing double taxation. If income is mistakenly assessed in the hands of individual members instead of the Association of Persons or Hindu Undivided Family, or vice versa, the Income Tax Officer must make appropriate adjustments for the tax already realized.

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.

Madhav Rao Jivaji Rao Scindia Bahadur v. Union of India
3 SCR 9 · 1971 · Reported
43
citing judgments

A word, clause, or sentence from a court judgment, when taken out of context, does not represent a complete exposition of the law on a question that the judgment did not explicitly address.

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.

CIT v. Ravi Kant Jain
250 ITR 141 · 2001 · High Court
34
citing judgments

Additions made as undisclosed income following a search and seizure cannot be sustained if there is no incriminating evidence found during the search to establish such undisclosed income. The purpose of section 158BC is to tax income detected as a result of a search.

CIT v. Attili N. Rao
252 ITR 880 · 2001 · Supreme Court
28
citing judgments

Capital gains are computed on the full price realized from the sale of an asset, even if certain dues are deducted from that price by a third party before payment to the assessee. Deductions for such dues are not permissible when calculating capital gains.

Judgments on Section 112

Veenaben Arvindbhai Shah, Ahmedabad vs. CPC, Bengaluru Juris. AO-the ITO, Ward-1(3)(1), Petlad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2430/AHD/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Jun 2026AY 2024-25

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamblemrs. Veenaben Arvindbhai Shah, Centralised Processing Center, Mig-1/Y/1302, Ghb Flat, Income Tax Department, Bengaluru, Shastrinagar Char Rasta, [Jurisdiction Ao – Income Tax Nr. Anmol Tower, Shastrinagar, Officer, Ward 1(3)(1), Petland], Naranpura, Ahmedabad Vs. T.P. No.2, F.P. No.24, Bank House, Gujarat Nr. Laxmiji Temple, Ranchodji College Road, Petland, Anand, Gujarat Pan: Mtxps4808J (Appellant) : (Respondent) : Shri Kushal Fofaria, Ar Assessee By Respondent By : Shri Girish Parihar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 01.04.2026 : 16.06.2026 Date Of Pronouncement O R D E R Per : Suchitra Kamble, J M: The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Addl/Jcit(A)[In Short “Cit(A)”], Raipur Dated 27.11.2025 For The Assessment Year (In Short “Ay”) 2024-25. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts Of The Case In Upholding Prima Facie Adjustment U/S. 143(1) Of The Act Made By Cpc In Respect Of Rebate Claimed U/S. 87A Of The Act Which Is A Debatable & Contentious Issue Requiring Long Drawn Process Of Reasoning. 2. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts Of The Case In Confirming Denial Of Rebate Of Rs. 24,583/-Claimed U/S. 87A Of The Act In Respect Of Tax Payable U/S. 112 Of The Act On Long Term Capital Gain Earned On Sale Of Residential Flat. Mrs. Veenaben Arvindbhai Shah

For Respondent: Shri Girish Parihar, Sr. DR
Section 112Section 112ASection 112A(6)Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 2Section 87A

Sarikaben Gopalbhai Polekar, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 1, Bardoli

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 997/SRT/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Surat03 Jun 2026AY 2024-25

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamblems. Sarikaben Gopalbhai Polekar, Income Tax Officer, 2139, Nr. New Ganesh Dairy, Ward 1, Bardoli, Zanda Chowk, Vs. Surat -396195 Tarsadi, Surat– 394120 Pan: Amapp1616M (Appellant) : (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Darshit J Naik, Ca Respondent By : Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 26.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.06.2026 O R D E R Per : Suchitra Kamble, J M: The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Addl/Jcit(A)-4, [In Short “Ld. Cit(A)”], Bengaluru, Dated 19.08.2025 For The Assessment Year (In Short “Ay”) 2024-25. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “) The Appellant Objects To The Erroneous Demand Of Rs. 30,880/- Determined Vide Intimation U/S 143(1). 2) The Appellant Objects To Non-Grant Of Rebate In The Intimation U/S 143(1) While Computing The Total Tax Payable By The Appellant. 3) Both Lower Authorities Erred In Not Granting Rebate U/S 87A Of The Act Of Rs. 25,000/- Claimed Against Tax Payable On Long Term Capital Gains U/S 112, Even Though The Act Permits The Said Rebate Of Tax Against Tax Payable On Long Term Capital Gains U/S 112. Ms. Sarikaben Gopalbhai Polekar

For Appellant: Shri Darshit J Naik, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. DR
Section 111ASection 112Section 112(6)Section 112A(6)Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 234BSection 87A