Section 46A of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.69

Section 46A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 corresponds to section 69 (Capital gains on purchase by company of its own shares or other specified securities) of the Income-tax Act, 2025.

Read section 69 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 46A is CIT v. MAF Academy (P) Ltd. (361 ITR 258), cited in 132 of the 520 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
77
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

Indu Maheshwari, Jaipur vs. Circle 19(1), Mumbai, DCIT-CPC

In the result, Ground No.1 raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 715/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18 Indu Maheshwari Circle 19(1), Mumbai Shilpam, 20-A, Janpath Shyam Dcit-Cpc Nagar, Jaipur- 302019 Vs. Rajasthan (Pan: Abopm6419N) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Atharv Mundra, Ca Revenue : Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 07.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.12.2025 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Addl/Jcit (A)-2, Bengaluru, Vide Order No. Itba/Apl/S/250/2024- 25/1071060919(1), Dated 10.12.2024 Passed Against The Intimation Issued By Centralized Processing Center, By Dcit, Bengaluru (Cpc), U/S. 143(1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 13.03.2019 For Ay 2017-18. 2. Grounds Taken By Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: 1. In Law & In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Appellant Case, The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) Has Grossly Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 34,34,698/- Made By Ld. Ao Treating As Dividend U/S. 10 (34) Of It Act. However Appellant Earned Income From Mutual Fund Which Is Exempt U/S. 10(35) Of It Act. 2. In Law & In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Appellant Case, The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) Has Grossly Erred In Confirming The 2 Indu Maheshwari Ay 2017-18 Addition Of Rs. 3,79,894/- Made By Ld. Ao For Not Allowing Of Loss Of Capital Gain.

For Appellant: Shri Atharv Mundra, CAFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, Sr. DR
Section 10Section 10(34)Section 10(35)Section 115BSection 143(1)

Shalini Srivastava, Haldwani vs. Ward 2(1)(1) Haldwani/, Haldwani

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 121/DDN/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun24 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal[Through Virtual Mode] [Assessment Year :2019-20] Shalini Srivastava Vs Ward-2(1)(1) Sheeshmahal, Opp. Haldwani Filter House, Uttarakhand Kathgodam, Haldwani, Uttarakhand-263139 Pan-Apyps8567D Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Prashant Kackar, Ca Revenue By Shri Amar Pal Singh, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 09.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24.12.2025 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 08.07.2025 By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“Nfac”), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Nfac/2018-19/10096852 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Dated 28.09.2021 Passed U/S 144 R.W.S. 144B Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Filed Her Return Of Income, Declaring Income From House Property Of Inr 51,754/- & Income Under The Head “Other Sources” Of Inr 17,56,736/-. The Total Income Of Inr 18,08,490/- Was Claimed As Set Off Against The Current Year Losses From Business & Profession Of Inr 31,04,998/- & Thus Total Income At Inr Nil Was Declared After Claiming Of Deduction Under Chapter Via Of Inr 1,56,918/-. The Return Of Income Was Selected For Complete Scrutiny. Notices U/S 143(2) Followed By Notices U/S 142(1) Were Issued From Time To Time Which Were Not Complied With. In Absence Of Any Reply By The Assessee, Order Was Passed U/S 144 As Per Information Available & Total Income Of The Assessee Was Assessed At Inr 13,32,38,065/- By Making Various Addition.

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 68