Section 48 of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.72

Section 48 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 corresponds to section 72 (Mode of computation of capital gains) of the Income-tax Act, 2025.

Read section 72 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 48 is CIT v. Walfort Share & Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd. (326 ITR 1), cited in 543 of the 1,457 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 48

CIT v. Walfort Share & Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd.
326 ITR 1 · 2010 · Supreme Court
543
citing judgments

For attracting Section 14A disallowance, there must be a proximate cause relating the expenditure to actual tax-exempt income, and such disallowance is not automatic but requires positive material. Additionally, Section 94(7) on dividend stripping only ignores losses to the extent of dividend received for assessment years post-April 1, 2002, allowing the remaining loss.

Escorts Ltd. v. UOI
199 ITR 43 · 1993 · Supreme Court
267
citing judgments

A statute should not be construed to permit double deduction for the same expenditure unless specifically provided by law.

E.D. Sassoon & Co. Ltd. v. CIT
26 ITR 27 · 1954 · Supreme Court
256
citing judgments

Income is taxable only when it represents real income, not notional income. It accrues only when there is a vested right to receive it, typically upon the occurrence of a transfer or event, rather than merely on a time basis.

CIT v. Balbir Singh Maini
398 ITR 531 · 2017 · Supreme Court
228
citing judgments

A transfer of immovable property, for the purpose of capital gains under section 2(47)(v) of the Income-tax Act, occurs only when the agreement allowing possession in part performance of a contract is a registered instrument, as mandated by Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act.

Gramaphone Co. of India Ltd. v. Birendra Bahadur Pandey
132 Taxmann 373 · 2003 · Supreme Court
146
citing judgments
CIT v. D.P. Sandhu & Bros.
273 ITR 1 · 2005 · Supreme Court
140
citing judgments

Surrender of tenancy rights is a transfer of a capital asset, and the consideration received is a capital receipt subject to capital gains tax. If the cost of acquisition cannot be determined, the transfer of such an asset was not taxable under capital gains prior to the amendment of Section 55(2) in 1995.

Morvi Industries Ltd. v. CIT
82 ITR 835 · 1971 · Supreme Court
136
citing judgments

Income accrues when it becomes due, vesting the assessee with the right to claim the amount, even if payment is not immediate. It requires a corresponding liability from the other party to pay, emphasizing real rather than hypothetical accrual, particularly for assessees using the mercantile system of accounting.

Nirma Industries Ltd. v. DCIT
283 ITR 402 · 2006 · High Court
136
citing judgments

Interest received on delayed payments for sales is considered part of the sale proceeds and is eligible for deduction under Section 80-IA as business income.

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).

Indian Express 498 Newspapers (Bombay) (P) Ltd. v. Union of India
1 SCC 641 · 1985 · Reported
109
citing judgments

The Supreme Court examined the validity of customs duty on newsprint in the context of Article 19(1)(a), emphasizing that the press advances public interest by publishing facts and opinions crucial for a democratic country.

Judgments on Section 48

Narendra Shantikumar Firodia, Ahmednagar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Ahmednagar

ITA 494/PUN/2020[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Dec 2022AY 2014-2015

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 494/Pun/2020 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Shri Narendra Shantikumar Firodia, 5 Shobha Sadan, Aurangabad Road, Dsp Chowk, Ahmednagar – 414 002 Pan :Aabpf6158K . . . . . . . अपऩलधथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Ahmednagar. . . . . . . . प्रत्यथी / Respondent द्वारा / Appearances Assessee By : Shri C. H. Naniwadekar Revenue By : Shri Ramnath Murkunde सपिवधई की तधरऩख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 13/10/2022 घोर्णध की तधरऩख / Date Of Pronouncement : 09/12/2022 आदेश / Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; The Present Appeal Is Assailed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Pune [For Short “Cit(A)”] Dt. 20/03/2020 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [For Short “The Act”] Upholding The Order Of Assessment Dt. 28/12/2016 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act By Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Ahmednagar Circle, Ahmednagar [For Short “Ao”] For The Assessment Year [For Short “Ay”] 2014-15. Itat-Pune Page 1 Of 8

For Appellant: Shri C. H. NaniwadekarFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath Murkunde
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 50C

Smt. Varshaben Vipulbhai Bhalani, Baroda vs. The DCIT, Central Circle-2, Vadodara

In the result, appeal is allowed

ITA 348/AHD/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 348/Ahd/2021 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12) Smt. Varshaben Dcit बनाम/ Vipulbhai Bhalani Central Circle – 2, Baroda Vs. 401, Chaitanya Apartment, 7, Laxmi Colony, Urmi Road, Baroda "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Ahvpb0323K .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Smt. Urvashi Shodhan, A.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से / Ms. Anam Benish, Sr. D.R. Respondent By : सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of 10/11/2022 Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of 23/11/2022 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Ms. Madhumita Roy - Jm: The Instant Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 22.11.2021 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Ahmedabad (In Short ‘Cit(A)’) Arising Out Of The Penalty Order Dated 09.10.2020 Passed By The Learned Dcit, Central Circle-2, Vadodara Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As To ‘The Act’) For Assessment Year 2011-12. Ita No. 348/Ahd/2021 (Smt. Varshaben V. Bhalani Vs. Dcit) A.Y. 2011-12 - 2 - 2. This Matter Relates To Levying Of Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act To The Tune Of Rs.45,690/-.

For Appellant: Smt. Urvashi Shodhan, A.R
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 2Section 271(1)(c)Section 48Section 50CSection 50C(2)

Shivanand Mahadeoappa Ople, Beed vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Beed

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 950/PUN/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.950/Pun/2019 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Shivanand Mahadeoappa Ople, The Income Tax Officer, Mangalnath Colony, Gajanan Vs Ward-1, Beed. Krupa Niwas, Beed Road, Malalgaon – 431131. Pan: Aahpo 1059 N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By None. Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 21/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 12/10/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-2, Aurangabad, Dated 05.04.2019 For The A.Y. 2012-13 Arising Out Of The Order U/S 271(1)(C) Dated 5/12/2017. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On The Facts Of The Case & In Law, It May Please Be Held That The Penalty Levied U/S.271(1)(C) Is Null & Void Since The Initiation Of Penalty Proceedings & Notice U/S.274 R.W.S 271(1)(C) Both Are Without Proper Application Of Mind. - Rs.1,56,101/- 2. The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming Penalty On The Capital Gain Amount Of Rs.7,80,508/- Arose Due To Difference Between Indexed Cost Of Acquisition As On 01/04/1981 Allowed By The Ao In Assessment As Compared To That Finalized In Appeal By Cit(A) On Basis Of Valuation Done By Dvo. The Said Penalty May Please Be Deleted. Shivanand Mahadeoappa Ople [A]

Section 139(1)Section 148Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 50C