Section 46A of the Income Tax Act

The decision most relied on for Section 46A is CIT v. MAF Academy (P) Ltd. (361 ITR 258), cited in 132 of the 612 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 46A

CIT v. MAF Academy (P) Ltd.
361 ITR 258 · 2014 · High Court
132
citing judgments

Amounts received from bogus share transactions, where a private limited company sells shares to unrelated parties at a huge premium and then repurchases them at a loss shortly after, are taxable as unexplained cash credits under Section 68. The onus to prove identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of such transactions lies solely on the assessee.

CIT v. D. Ananda Basappa
309 ITR 329 · 2009 · High Court
97
citing judgments

For exemption under Section 54, the expression 'a residential house' allows for investment in multiple residential units that form one functional unit, as 'a' does not imply a singular number. The amendment to Section 54, effective from April 1, 2015, is prospective.

CIT v. Virgin Securities & Credits (P) Ltd.
332 ITR 396 · 2011 · High Court
85
citing judgments

The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) must admit additional evidence if it is crucial for the proper disposal of the appeal, ensuring substantial justice to the appellant.

CIT v. Gita Duggal
357 ITR 153 · 2013 · High Court
73
citing judgments

For capital gains exemption under sections 54 and 54F, the term "a residential house" does not restrict the exemption to a single residential unit and can include multiple contiguous or combined residential units treated as one house.

Shankar Khandasari Sugar Mills v. CIT
193 ITR 669 · 1992 · High Court
64
citing judgments

Best judgment assessments under Section 144 must be a fair and rational estimation of income by the Assessing Officer, not capricious or arbitrary. Appellate authorities should accept clarificatory evidence to test the fairness of such assessments, even if produced for the first time.

Raja Bahadur Kamakhya Narain Singh v. CIT
77 ITR 253 · 1970 · Supreme Court
49
citing judgments

The Supreme Court clarifies the distinction between income chargeable as capital gains and income taxable as business profits, guiding the assessment of whether a transaction constitutes a transfer of a capital asset or is in the nature of trade.

CIT v. Glaxo Smithkline Asia (P.) Ltd.
195 Taxmann 35 · 2010 · Supreme Court
46
citing judgments

The Supreme Court may dismiss an appeal challenging the allocation of intra-group cross-charges if the entire transaction is found to be revenue neutral for the relevant assessment year.

CIT v. Gumanmal Jain
394 ITR 666 · 2017 · High Court
46
citing judgments

Multiple floors or houses can qualify as 'a residential house' for capital gains exemption under Sections 54 and 54F if they are constructed or capable of being used as a single unit. This applies to assessment years where the unamended law used the term 'a residential house'.

PCIT v. NDR Promoters
102 Taxmann.com 182 · 2019 · High Court
27
citing judgments

Additions under Section 68 for share capital received from companies managed by one person are justified when the Assessing Officer establishes this fact. The Supreme Court has upheld this view.

CIT v. V.S. Dempo & Co. Pvt. Ltd.
336 ITR 209 · 2011 · High Court
27
citing judgments

Disallowance under Section 40A(2)(b) is not maintainable when both the payer and payee are assessed at the maximum marginal rate, as it results in a revenue-neutral situation.

Judgments on Section 46A

ANUJ GUPTA,FARIDABAD vs. ITO, WARD 1(1), FBD, FARIDABAD,HARYANA

In the result, impugned order is set aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7253/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं.7253/धिल्ली/2025 (नि.व. 2017-18) Anuj Gupta, 2337, Near Old Capital Bus Stand, Ballabgarh, Faridabad, Haryana 121004 ...... अपीलार्थी/Appellant Pan: Aibpg-7308-J बिाम Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1), Cgo Complex, New Industrial Township 4, ..... प्रनिवादी/Respondent Faridabad, Haryana 121001 अपीलार्थी द्वारा/Appellant By : S/Shri I.P Bansal, Sanjay Goyal & Vivek Bansal, Advocates (Through Vc) प्रधििािीद्वारा/Respondent By : Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr सुिवाई की निथर्थ/ Date Of Hearing : 16/12/2025 घोषणा की निथर्थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 12/03/2026 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [In Short ‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 15.10.2025, For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Shri I.P Bansal Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee Submits That The Assessee Is A Proprietor Of M/S Gupta Electric Store & Is Engaged In Trading Of Electrical Goods. For The Assessment Year 2017-18, The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income On 28.09.2017, Declaring Total Income Of Rs. 3,93,730/-. Based On Information With 2 Respect To Cash Deposits Of Rs. 11,80,000/- During The Demonetization Period (09.11.2016 To 31.12.2016) In His Bank Account With Vijaya Bank, The Assessment For Ay 2017-18 Was Reopened U/S.147 Of The Income Tax Act,1961(Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’).

For Appellant: S/Shri I.P Bansal, Sanjay Goyal & Vivek BansalFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 44ASection 68

Showing 120 of 612 · Page 1 of 31

...