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

Kasiraj Rengappa, Tamilnadu vs. ITO, Ward Int. Tax 1(1)(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 414/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2017-18] Kasiraj Rengappa Vs Ito, 6313, Clover Hill Drive, Ward-1(1)(1) San Jose Foreign, International Taxation, United States Of America Or Civic Centre, Minto Road, [Indian Address] - 3/226, New Delhi-110002. Navaneethkrishnapuram Sevlkulam, Tirunelveli, Tamil Nadu-627754. Pan-Brjpr2094A Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri T.Vasudevan, Adv. (Through Vc) Respondent By Shri Vikram Singh Sharma, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 09.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 09.10.2025 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 29.12.2021 By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“Nfac”), Delhi-42 [“Ld. Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Cit(A), Delhi-42/10502/2019-20 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising From The Assessment Order Dated 26.12.2019 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Is Nri & Earned Income From Interest Only During The Year & Filed His Return Of Income On 17.03.2018, Declaring Total Income Of Inr 85,320/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny By Issue Of Notice U/S 143(2) Of The Acton 24.09.2018. Thereafter Notices Were Issued U/S 142(1) In Response To Which Assessee Filed Reply From Time To Time. The Ao Observed That Assessee Deposited Cash In Sbn During Demonetization Period From 09.11.2016 To 30.12.2016 Into His Bank Account With State Bank Of India, Nro Account No.33350651335 Of Inr 22,50,000/-. After Considering The Submission Filed, Ao Passed The Order On 26.12.2019 U/S 143(3) Of The Act Wherein Total Income Of The Assessee Was Assessed At Inr 23,35,320/-.

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 250(6)

Pahanawa Associates Private Limited, Bhubaneswar vs. Income Tax Officer, Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal of the assesee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 360/CTK/2025[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack24 Sept 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं/Ita No. 360/Ctk/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-2015) Pahanawa Associates Priivate Vs Ito, Bhubaneswar Limited, Flat No-606,Vishnu Block,Balaji Complex Housing Society, Jharpada,Bhubaneswar-751006 Pan No. : Aaecp 8304 K (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : None राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. D.R. सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 24/09/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 24/09/2025 आदेश / O R D E R This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld.Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre(Nfac), Delhi Dated 27/02/2025 In Appeal No.Nfac/2013-14/10072355 For Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. There Is A Delay Of 49 Days, For Which The Assesee Has Filed Condonation Of Delay Petition. The Revenue Has Not Disputed The Delay & Condonation. The Reasons Given By The Assesee Are Found To Be Plausible, Consequently, The Delay In Filing Of The Appeal Is Condoned. 3. A Perusal Of The Facts As Also The Submissions Of The Ld. Sr. Dr Shows That The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Is Exparte In Sofaras The Assesee Has Not Represented Before The Ld.Cit(A). This Being So, In The Interest Of The Justice The Issues In This Appeal Are Restored To The File Of The Ld.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. D.R