Section 49 of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.73

Section 49 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 corresponds to section 73 (Cost with reference to certain modes of acquisition) of the Income-tax Act, 2025.

Read section 73 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 49 is CIT v. Manjula J. Shah (355 ITR 474), cited in 113 of the 176 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 49

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).

CIT v. Ace Builders (P) Ltd.
281 ITR 210 · 2005 · High Court
88
citing judgments

The deeming fiction in Section 50, which treats capital gains from depreciable assets as short-term, applies only for the purpose of computing capital gains under that section. For other provisions, such as set-off of losses under Section 74 or deductions under Section 54E/54EC, the asset's original character (long-term or short-term) is to be considered.

Joint Commissioner. 10. In Shin Etsu Chemical Co. Ltd. v. Aksh Optifibre Ltd.
7 SCC 234 · 2005 · Reported
75
citing judgments

A statute prescribing a procedure using negative language (e.g., 'in no other manner') imposes absolute requirements, and failure to comply will invalidate the entire proceeding.

Girnar Traders v. State of Maharashtra
7 SCC 555 · 2007 · Supreme Court
16
citing judgments

Only the ratio decidendi of a judgment, which is the principle of law that decides the dispute, can be relied upon as precedent, not obiter dicta or casual observations. A court's decision must be read as a whole and its observations considered in light of the questions before the court.

Mittal Engineering Works P. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise
1 SCC 203 · 1997 · Supreme Court
14
citing judgments

A court decision can only be relied upon for its ratio decidendi, which is the principle of law that decides the dispute. Obiter dicta or casual observations are not binding precedents. A decision cannot be cited to support the proposition that it did not decide something.

AP Paper Mills Ltd. v. ACIT
128 TTJ 596 · 2010 · ITAT
12
citing judgments

Goodwill arising on amalgamation is an asset and eligible for depreciation under Section 32(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The actual cost of such goodwill in the hands of the amalgamated company is the same as it would have been in the hands of the amalgamating company.

Trib.) 12. Hindustan Industrial Resources Ltd. v. ACIT
335 ITR 77 · 2011 · High Court
12
citing judgments

Land classified as agricultural by the District Collector is considered agricultural land for tax purposes, regardless of the owner's intention to use it for industrial purposes or the absence of agricultural operations.

Tulsidas Kilachand v. CIT
42 ITR 1 · 1961 · Supreme Court
5
citing judgments
CIT v. Scindia Steam Naviagation Co. Ltd.
125 ITR 118 · High Court
4
citing judgments
SKF India Ltd. v. DCIT
168 Taxmann.com 328 · 2024 · ITAT
4
citing judgments

Judgments on Section 49

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Ncc3(1) Chennai, Nungambakkam vs. Shri Venkatesh Meghraj Kathare, Alwarpet

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 974/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:974/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2014-15 The Assistant Commissioner Shri Venkatesh Meghraj Kathare, Of Income Tax, Vs. New No.205, Old No.128, Non-Corporate Circle 3(1), St. Mary Road, Chennai. Chennai – 600 018. Pan: Aadpk 5251E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Ms. R. Anita, Addl.Cit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri G. Seetharaman, C.A. सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18.09.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20.09.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Arising Out Of The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre In Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1061041943(1) Dated 16.02.2024. The Assessment Was Framed By The Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Non-Corporate Circle 3, Chennai For The Assessment Year 2014-15 U/S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’) Vide Order Dated 30.12.2016. 2. The First Issue In This Appeal Of Revenue Is Against The Order Of Cit(A) Treating The Sale Of Land At Tiruvottiyur High Road As Long Term Capital Gain As Against Assessed By Ao As Short Term Capital Gain. For This, Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds:- 1) The Cit(A) Has Erred On The Facts Of The Case In Treating The Capital Gains On Sale Of Land At Tiruvottiyur High Road As Long Term Capital Gain Instead Of Short Term Capital Gain Without Appreciating That :

For Appellant: Ms. R. Anita, Addl.CITFor Respondent: Shri G. Seetharaman, C.A
Section 143(3)Section 2Section 2(47)Section 46(2)