Section 112A of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.198

Section 112A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 corresponds to section 198 (Tax on long-term capital gains in certain cases) of the Income-tax Act, 2025.

Read section 198 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 112A is Sunil Siddharthbhai v. CIT (156 ITR 509), cited in 82 of the 51 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 112A

Sunil Siddharthbhai v. CIT
156 ITR 509 · 1985 · Supreme Court
82
citing judgments

A partner's contribution of a personal asset to a partnership firm does not amount to a "transfer" for capital gains purposes under the Income-tax Act, as the consideration (the partner's interest in the firm) is indeterminate, and the computational machinery for capital gains fails.

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.

CIT v. M. N. Raigi
17 ITR 180 · 1949 · High Court
16
citing judgments

The share income of a partner, even if not forming part of their total income, is to be considered in determining the rate of income tax payable by the partner.

AM Shah v. CIT 238 IT12 415 (Guj); GT Vs. Sint. P.K. Koehammu Anna, Peroke
125 ITR 624 · 1980 · Supreme Court
15
citing judgments
Jute Corporation of India v. CIT
189 ITR 688 · Supreme Court
12
citing judgments

An additional ground of appeal can be considered if it is a question of law and arises from the facts already on record, allowing for a more complete adjudication of the appeal.

Bharti Harendra Modi v. ITO
420 ITR 226 · 2020 · High Court
11
citing judgments

An assessment notice issued under Section 148 to a deceased assessee without impleading their legal representative is invalid and the proceedings are void ab initio. The notice must be served on the legal representative as per Section 159(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act.

ITO v. Rajeev Suresh Ghai
132 Taxmann.com 234 · 2021 · Reported
10
citing judgments

The decision in ITO v. Rajeev Suresh Ghai supports the principle that provisions related to unexplained cash credits under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act may not be applicable to non-resident Indians, particularly when funds are withdrawn for specific purposes like parental medical treatment.

Trade Corporation v. ADIT (IT)
20 Taxmann.com 728 · 2012 · Reported
7
citing judgments
Inox Wind Energy Ltd. v. Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income
148 Taxmann.com 289 · 2023 · High Court
5
citing judgments

Judgments on Section 112A

Sameer Satish Satpute, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, (It) Ward 4, Pune, B.O. Bhawan

In the result, the appeal of assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2933/PUN/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Apr 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2933/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2022-23 Sameer Satish Satpute, Ito, (It) Ward 4, Pune 39, Rakshak Society, Aundh, Pune-411027 Vs. Pan : Asops4608L अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Kishor B Phadke Department By : Shri Harshit Bari Date Of Hearing : 25-02-2026 Date Of 10-04-2026 Pronouncement : आदेश / Order Per Astha Chandra, Jm : The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 04.09.2025 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Pune-13 [“Cit(A)”] Pertaining To Assessment Year (“Ay”) 2022-23. 2. Briefly Stated, The Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Non- Resident Individual. During Fy 2021-22 Relevant To Ay 2022-23 Under Consideration, The Taxable Income Of The Assessee In India Comprised Of : (I) Rental Income From House Property In Pune; (Ii) Capital Gains From Stocks & Mutual Funds; (Iii) Dividend Income; (Iv) Fixed Deposits & (V) Nro Account Interest & Pass Through Income From Two Funds. For Ay 2022- 23, The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income U/S 139(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The “Act”) On 30.07.2022 Claiming Refund Of Rs.3,62,090/-. The Return Of The Assessee Was Processed By The Cpc, Bengaluru U/S 143(1) Of The Act Vide Intimation Order Dated 06.10.2023 Wherein The Ld. Cpc Assessed The Total Income Of The Assessee At Rs.5,37,30,540/- & Raised A Tax Demand Of Rs.35,68,200/-. On Going Through The Intimation, The Assessee Noticed That Though Gross Total Income Was Accepted, Income Adopted As Chargeable At Special Rate Was Incorrect. As Per The Order Of 2

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Harshit Bari
Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154

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