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

Prominent Tradelink Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 15(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1627/KOL/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Dec 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2012-13 Prominent Tradelink Pvt. Ltd..……..………………….……….……….……Appellant 62, Phears Lane, Kol – 700073.. [Pan: Aaecp7665B] Vs. Ito, Ward-15(2), Kolkata…………...…………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Manish Tiwari, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri S. B. Chakraborthy, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 03, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 10, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 13.06.2025 Of The Cit(Appeal)-51, Mumbai (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2012–13. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That In This Case, The Assessee Filed Original Return Of Income On 12.12.2012 Claiming A Total Income Of Rs. 13,230/-. The Case Was Taken Up For Scrutiny & Various Statutory Notices Issued. The Assessing Officer Observed That The Assessee Has Taken Unsecured Loan Of Rs.1,11,42,174/- During The Assessment Year. Due To Prolonged Non-Compliance On The Part Of The Assessee To Verify The Loan Transaction, The Assessing Officer Treated The Same As Unexplained Cash Credit U/S 68 Of The Act & Added This To The Total Income Of The Assessee. Prominent Tradelink Pvt. Ltd 3. Aggrieved By The Said Order, The Assessee Preferred An Appeal Before The Ld. Cit(A) Wherein The Appeal Has Been Dismissed By Passing An Ex Parte Order As There Was No Compliance On Behalf Of The Assessee On Different Dates Fixed By The Ld. Cit(A).

Section 250Section 68

Raman Mayavan, Namakkal vs. ITO, Circle-1, Erode

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

ITA 2418/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2418/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 Raman Mayavan, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 65, Rangar Sannathi Street, Circle 1, Namakkal 637 001. Erode. [Pan:Abbpm8802G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate [Erode] ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 20.11.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 01.12.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 10.07.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The Assessee Raised 5 Grounds Of Appeal Amongst Which, The Only Issue Emanates For Our Consideration As To Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified In Dismissing The Appeal Of The Assessee Without Considering The Additional Evidences Filed In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case.

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate [Erode]For Respondent: Ms. E. pavuna Sundari, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 68