Section 2(42A) of the Income Tax Act

The decision most relied on for Section 2(42A) is CIT v. Manjula J. Shah (355 ITR 474), cited in 113 of the 31 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 2(42A)

CIT v. Manjula J. Shah
355 ITR 474 · 2013 · High Court
113
citing judgments

For capital assets acquired by gift or will, the indexed cost of acquisition under Section 48 is computed with reference to the year the previous owner first held the asset. The period of holding for determining if an asset is long-term also includes the previous owner's holding period, as per Section 2(42A).

M.M. Aqua Technologies Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi
2021 SCC OnLine SC 575 · 2021 · Reported
102
citing judgments

A tax provision is retrospective only if legislative intent is explicit or if it is purely clarificatory and does not alter existing law. Provisions framed 'for the removal of doubts' are not presumed to be retrospective if they change the law as it stood.

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.

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.

Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. & Ors. v. State of Bihar
48 ITR 123 · 1963 · Supreme Court
43
citing judgments

An integrated business engaged in captive consumption derives profits or value from its internal activities, even when intermediate products are not sold externally. The principle that a person cannot make profits out of himself does not apply to deny profits from such internal operations for tax or cess purposes.

CIT v. Sulzer India Ltd.
369 ITR 717 · 2014 · High Court
38
citing judgments

Where an assessee discharges a future liability at its present value, it does not result in a "benefit" accruing to the assessee, and therefore, Section 41(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is not applicable.

CIT v. Shri Goverdhan Ltd.
69 ITR 675 · 1968 · Supreme Court
37
citing judgments

Income accrues to an assessee when they acquire a right to receive it, even if it has not yet been actually received or quantified. A debt is created once liability is established, and its future quantification does not make it contingent.

Avada Trading Company (P) Ltd. v. ACIT
100 ITD 131 · 2006 · ITAT
30
citing judgments

Interest received under section 244A is taxable in the year of receipt, even if the proceedings under section 143(1)(a) are subject to finality later, and any reduction in interest due to subsequent assessment proceedings under section 143(3) does not leave the assessee without remedy.

Smt. Raj Rani Devi Ramna v. CIT
201 ITR 1032 · 1993 · High Court
21
citing judgments
CIT v. Balkrishna Industries Ltd.
88 Taxmann.com 273 · 2017 · Supreme Court
21
citing judgments

Judgments on Section 2(42A)

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2 1 1, AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. BHARAT LAKHAJI NANDWANA, AHMEDABAD

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

ITA 1366/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. Adv. & Ms. UktiFor Respondent: Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. Adv. & Ms. Ukti
Section 49Section 54Section 54E

BANG EQUITY BROKING PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-CIRCLE 4(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7504/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member), SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Anant N. Pai, CAFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui (SR DR)
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 32Section 55

FORT CANNING CREDIT INVESTMENTS PTE. LTD.,SINGAPORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) - 2(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2104/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jan 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2022-23 Fort Canning Investments Assistant Commissioner Of Pte. Ltd. Income-Tax (International 260 Orchard Road, #14-02 Taxation) - 2(3)(1) Vs. The Heeren, Singapore, Mumbai Singapore – 238855 (Pan: Aaccf9284G) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2022-23 Fort Canning Credit Assistant Commissioner Of Investments Pte. Ltd. Income-Tax (International 260 Orchard Road #14-02 Taxation) - 2(3)(1) Vs. The Heeren, Singapore, Mumbai Singapore – 238855 (Pan: Aadcf7866R) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Dhanesh Bafna, Ms. Priyanka Agarwala, Ms.Hirali Desai, Ms. Nidhi Agarwal & Shri Yogesh Malpani, Cas Revenue : Shri Satya Pal Kumar, Cit Dr & Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 29.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.01.2026 Fort Canning Investments Pte. Ltd. & Fort Canning Credit Investments Pte. Ltd. Ay 2022-23

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh BafnaFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar, CIT DR and Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 234BSection 270A

PADMAJA RAJESH HARVE,MUMBAI vs. ACIT - 41(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5343/MUM/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2026AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Bijayananda Prusethpadmaja Rajesh Harve Vs. Acit-41(1)(1) Room No. 425, 4Th Floor, Kautilyabhavan, 1201-A, 64 Greens Building, Tagore Road, C-41 To C-43, G Block, Bandrakurla Santacruz West, Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai-400054. Mumbai -400051. Pan/Gir No:Aaxph1769E (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 250Section 45Section 47Section 47ASection 54Section 54F

SMT. SHREE JAIN ,MUMBAI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(2), MUMBAI

In the result, we hold that

ITA 2565/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Bijayananda Prusethsmt. Shree Jain, 17/1, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Anurag Ali Asker Rod, Off. Tax, Central Circle-5(2), Mumbai. Chunningham Road, 1/24, Room No.634, Aayakar Bhawan, Marsh Bangalore-560052. Karve Road, Churchgate, Mumbai- 400020. Pan/Gir No:Aarpj4573A (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, NOIDA, NOIDA vs. RAGHAV BAHL, NOIDA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1640/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 250

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 27, NEW DELHI vs. ANAND KUMAR CHAURASIA, DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1734/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRIS.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amit Jain, CITDR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

SH. ANAND KUMAR CHAURASIA,DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-27, NEW DELHI, DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1324/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRIS.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amit Jain, CITDR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

TATA COMMUNICATIONS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI

In the result, the question of law referred to the Special Bench is answered in favour of the assessee

ITA 3515/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Arun Khodpiatata Communications Limited Pr. Cit, Videsh Sanchar Bhavan, Mumbai-1 Vs. M. G. Road, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 Pan/Gir No. Aaacv 2808 C (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri J. D. Mistri Respondent By : Shri Ritesh Misra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 25.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.09.2025 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey: The Present Appeal, At The Instance Of The Assessee, Assails Order Dated 21.03.2025, Passed U/S. 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ For Short), By Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (‘Ld. Pcit’ For Short), Pertaining To The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2018-19. 2. Though The Assessee Has Raised Multiple Grounds, Both On Jurisdictional Issues As Well As On Merits, However, There Is Consensus Between The Parties That The Appeal Can Be Decided On Merits, In Which Event, There Is No Need To Go Into Various Other Issues Raised In Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri J. D. MistriFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT DR
Section 112Section 143(3)Section 263Section 50

SAMIR NARAIN BHOJWANI ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 4(2)(1), MUMBAI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 261/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jun 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar & Chaitanya
Section 112Section 194CSection 250Section 37(1)Section 40Section 50

BRAJ KISHORE SINGH,ANDHERI EAST vs. ASSESSING OFFICER INT. TAX WARD 4(2)(1), INTERNATIONAL TAX, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is accordingly partly allowed for statistical

ITA 1011/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanbraj Kishore Singh Vs. Assessing Officer 604, Lantana, Nahar Amrit Internatinal Tax Ward Shakti, Chandivali, 4(2)91) Maharashtra -400 072. Room No. 632, Kautilya Bhavan, Pan: Bqips8474H C-41 To C-43, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051

Section 142(1)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(2)Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

SURENDRA SAMPATRAJ SURANA ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 23(1), , MUMBAI

In the result, the Assessee's appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 5886/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryshri Prabhash Shankarassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik SR DR
Section 250Section 43C

VANGUARD FUNDS PUBLIC LIMITED COMPANY VANG FTSE EMERGING MKTS UCITS ETF,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-4(3)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 1280/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 May 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm Ι.Τ.Α. No. 1277/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2022-23) Vanguard Emerging Markets Stock Index Fund A Series Of Visplc, C/O Ernst & Young Llp, 14Th Floor, The Ruby, 29, Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar (West), Mumbai-400028. Pan: Aaccv3136B Appellant) Vs. Acit (It)-4(3)(1), Kautilya Bhavan, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Maharashtra-400051. : Respondent) Ι.Τ.Α. No. 1278/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2022-23) Vftc- Institutional Total International Stock Market Index Trust Ii, C/O Ernst & Young Llp, 14Th Floor, The Ruby, 29, Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar (West), Mumbai-400028. Pan: Aadtv1640C Acit (It)-4(3)(1), Kautilya Bhavan, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Vs. Maharashtra-400051. Appellant) : Respondent) Ι.Τ.Α. No. 1279/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2022-23) Vanguard Emerging Markets Stock Index Fund A Series Of Vieif, C/O Ernst & Young Llp, 14Th Floor, The Ruby, 29, Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar (West), Mumbai-400028. Vs. Acit (It)-4(3)(1), Kautilya Bhavan, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Maharashtra-400051. Pan: Aaaty0918K Appellant) : Respondent) 2

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

PANKAJ AGARWAL,KANPUR vs. JT.CIT CIRCLE-1(1)(1), KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 267/LKW/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow22 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2012-13 Pankaj Agarwal, 7/151, Ratan Vs. The Jt. Commissioner Of Majestic, Opp. Sony World, Income Tax, Circle 1(1)(1), Swaroop Nagar, Kanpur-208002 Kanpur-208001 Pan:Abjfs4912R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Rakesh Garg, Adv Revenue By: Sh. Sanjeev Krishna Sharma Sr Dr & Sh Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.04.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 21.08.2023. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. Because The Cit (A) Has The Erred On Facts & In Law In Upholding The Disallowance Of Rs.2,47,02,865/- On Account Of Loss In Trading In Derivatives Business Treating The Same As Capital Loss, As Against Assessee'S Claim Of Business Loss, To Be Set Off Against Other Business Income, Which Order Is Contrary To Facts, Bad In Law, The Disallowance Made By The Ao & Upheld Be Deleted. 2. Because On A Proper Consideration Of The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & Also On The Interpretation Of The Provisions Of Sec 43(5), It Would Be Found The Loss Of Rs.2,47,02,865/- On Account Of Trading In Derivative Is Neither A Speculative Loss Nor A Capital Loss, The Same Should Ought To Be Set Off Against Other Business Income, The Cit (A) Has Erred, In Treating The Same As Short Term Capital Loss.

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjeev Krishna Sharma Sr DR & Sh
Section 14ASection 250Section 43(5)Section 72

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, NASHIK, NASHIK vs. RAJENDRA RASIKLAL SHAH, NASHIK

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1015/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1015/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Sanket JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 53Section 54

VANGUARD EMERGING MARKETS STOCK INDEX FUND A SERIES OF VISPLC,MUMBAI vs. ACIT (INTERNATIONAL TAX)-4(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4657/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Mar 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), MS PADMAVATHY S (Accountant Member)

Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 90

SANJEEV KUMAR KATHURIA,YAMUNA NAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 , YAMUNANAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 329/CHANDI/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Jain, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(3)

GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD ( CORPORATE FINANCE DIVISION),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 6(3), MUMBAI

ITA 3762/MUM/2009[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Feb 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: the CIT(A). The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal preferred by the Assessee vide order, dated 18/05/2009. 4. Not being satisfied with the relief granted by the Id. CIT(A), the Assessee has preferred appeal before this Tribunal. The Revenue has also filed cross-appeal challenging the relief granted by the Id. CIT(A).

For Appellant: Shri J. D. Mistry Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kishor Dhule
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 24Section 43B

NUTECH ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-10(3)(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the appellant is dismissed

ITA 952/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am)

Section 50

RAVI JAKHAR,MUMBAI vs. ASS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 35(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3299/MUM/2024[ASS YEAR 2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Aug 2024

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawal & Shri Fenil Bhatt, A/RFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, Sr. D/R
Section 2Section 234BSection 234CSection 48Section 54FSection 69

Showing 1–20 of 31 · Page 1 of 2