Section 2(42A)

Section 2(42A) — the law in short

What the courts have decided on section 2(42A), in one screen. Read this first; open an entry when you need the facts, the reasoning and the source.

• Vijay Gupta v CIT High CourtHelps taxpayer
  I made a mistake in my own return and paid tax I did not owe. The time to revise has gone. Can the Commissioner give me relief under section 264?
  Yes. The Delhi High Court held that the revisional power under section 264 is very wide and is not confined to correcting the officer's errors - it extends to errors made by the assessee, including a legitimate claim never made in the return and raised for the first time in the revision application. An intimation under section 143(1) is an "order" for section 264. Paying the Rs.500 fee late is a curable irregularity, not a bar. The Commissioner's rejection was set aside and the revision restored for fresh consideration on merits.
• CIT, Faridabad v Dinesh Verma High CourtCuts both waysHigh Courts differ
  The Assessing Officer says s.54B is only for long-term assets, that I cannot show two full years of agricultural use, and that part of the new land is in my wife's name. Where do I actually stand?
  On this Punjab and Haryana decision you win the first point and lose the third. Section 54B speaks of 'a capital asset being land', not of a long-term capital asset, so the exemption is available even where the land was held for less than three years; but the two-year agricultural use must cover the whole of the two years immediately preceding the transfer, and the exemption is confined to what the assessee himself paid — the part of the price paid by his wife gets no relief.
• CIT v Manjula J. Shah High CourtHelps taxpayer
  I sold a flat that was gifted to me. Do I index from the gift date or the original purchase?
  From the previous owner's purchase. Under Explanation 1(i)(b) to s.2(42A) the previous owner's holding period is included, and the Bombay High Court held that the same fiction applies to clause (iii) of the Explanation to s.48, so the indexed cost of acquisition is computed from the year the previous owner first held the asset, not the year of the gift.
• Pramod Kumar Jain v DCIT ITATHelps taxpayerNo later treatment found
  The company bought back my vested options before I exercised them. Salary or capital gains?
  Capital gains, on this order, and on a fact that does real work. The shares of the Singapore parent were not listed, so the assessee could never exercise his options. Section 17(2)(vi) charges the value of a specified security allotted or transferred to the employee and values it on the date the option is exercised; with no exercise and no allotment there was no specified security and no way to value one, so the salary charge failed. The vested option was itself a capital asset - a right to subscribe to shares - and its repurchase was a relinquishment, so the consideration fell under s.45. The Tribunal said in terms that this leaves the ordinary case alone: exercise the option and the perquisite charge applies as usual.
• Embassy Office Parks REIT v DCIT — a REIT cannot amortise its IPO expenses under section 35D(2)(c) because it is not a company ITATHelps departmentNo later treatment found
  Our REIT incurred large expenses on its initial public offer and listing. Can it write them off over ten years under section 35D like a listed company?
  No, on the Bangalore Tribunal's reasoning. Clause (c) of section 35D(2) opens with the words 'where the assessee is a company', and a SEBI-registered Real Estate Investment Trust constituted under the Indian Trusts Act 1882 is neither a company under the Companies Act 2013 nor a company within section 2(17) of the Income-tax Act, so the deduction is unavailable however closely the public issue of units resembles a public issue of shares. The Tribunal held those opening words to be a conscious legislative limitation and not surplusage, refused to read units as shares, and dismissed the appeal.
• Jafferali K. Rattonsey v DCIT ITATHelps taxpayer
  I held shares in physical form for years and dematerialised them just before selling. The AO says my holding period runs from the demat date. Is he right?
  No. The date of purchase is taken from the broker's note or contract note, and the period of holding runs from that date, not from the date of dematerialisation. The Assessing Officer had converted a long-term gain into a short-term one by treating the demat date as the date of acquisition and the market price on that date as cost; the Tribunal rejected both moves.
• Manali Investments v Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax ITATHelps taxpayer
  I sold depreciable assets I had held for over three years and the whole block ceased to exist, so the gain was computed under section 50. The Assessing Officer says the gain is short-term and refuses to set it against my brought-forward long-term capital loss. Is he right?
  No. The Mumbai Tribunal held that s.50 is a computation provision and a deeming provision, and that the fiction cannot be carried beyond the purpose for which it was enacted: once the capital gain on the depreciable asset has been computed under s.50, the operation of that section is spent and the gain must be dealt with under the other provisions of the Act. The asset having been held for more than thirty-six months, the gain retains the character of long-term capital gain for all other provisions and qualifies for set-off against the brought-forward long-term capital loss under s.74.
• Statutory position — s.47(vi), (via), (vib), (vic), (vicc), (vid) and (vii): the amalgamation and demerger transfers that are not transfers, with the cost rules in s.49(2), (2C) and (2D) CBDT Circulars & InstructionsCuts both waysNo later treatment found
  Which transfers in an amalgamation or a demerger are outside section 45, and what cost and holding period do the shares in the transferee company carry afterwards?
  Seven clauses of section 47 take reorganisation transfers out of section 45. At company level: (vi) a transfer in a scheme of amalgamation of a capital asset by the amalgamating company to the amalgamated company, if the amalgamated company is an Indian company; (vib) a transfer in a demerger of a capital asset by the demerged company to the resulting company, if the resulting company is an Indian company; (via) a transfer in a scheme of amalgamation of shares held in an Indian company by an amalgamating foreign company to an amalgamated foreign company, on two conditions; and (vic) and (vicc), the corresponding foreign demerger cases. At shareholder level: (vid) any transfer or issue of shares by the resulting company in a demerger to the shareholders of the demerged company in consideration of the demerger; and (vii) a transfer by a shareholder in a scheme of amalgamation of shares in the amalgamating company, if made in consideration of the allotment of shares in the amalgamated company except where the shareholder is itself the amalgamated company, and the amalgamated company is an Indian company. Clause (vi) is the central one: any transfer, in a scheme of amalgamation, of a capital asset by the amalgamating company to the amalgamated company, if the amalgamated company is an Indian company — this is what takes the transfer of the undertaking itself out of section 45. On cost, s.49(2) gives the shareholder who receives shares in an amalgamated Indian company on a s.47(vii) transfer the cost of his shares in the amalgamating company; s.49(2C) splits the cost of the demerged company's shares to the resulting company's shares in the ratio the net book value of the assets transferred bears to the net worth of the demerged company immediately before the demerger; and s.49(2D) reduces the cost of the original shares by the amount so arrived at.
• Statutory position — section 111A: short-term gains where STT is paid, and what happens where it is not CBDT Circulars & InstructionsCuts both ways
  My client's short-term gains on shares are partly from on-market STT-paid sales and partly from an off-market transfer. Does the concessional rate cover both, and what is the rate now?
  Section 111A covers only a short-term capital asset that is an equity share, a unit of an equity oriented fund or a unit of a business trust where the sale transaction is chargeable to securities transaction tax. Where STT is not chargeable — an off-market sale, unlisted shares, a transfer outside the exchange — section 111A simply does not apply and the short-term gain goes into total income at the assessee's ordinary rate. The concessional rate itself is fifteen per cent for a transfer before 23 July 2024 and twenty per cent for a transfer on or after that date.
• Statutory position — section 112A: the long-term rate and the exempt slice, before and after 23 July 2024 CBDT Circulars & InstructionsCuts both ways
  My client sold listed equity shares twice in FY 2024-25 — once in June 2024 and once in September 2024. What rate and what exempt threshold apply to each lot?
  Two different rates apply inside the same previous year, but only ONE exempt slice. For a transfer BEFORE 23 July 2024 the section 112A rate is ten per cent; for a transfer ON OR AFTER 23 July 2024 it is twelve and a half per cent. The exempt slice is one lakh twenty-five thousand rupees for the whole of the previous year — the proviso to section 112A(2)(i) says in terms that the limit applies on the AGGREGATE of the long-term capital gains under both sub-clauses — so it is not split between the two rate blocks and the pre-23-July lot does not get a separate one lakh rupee slice. The one lakh rupee figure governs transfers up to 31 March 2024 only. Both changes were made by the Finance (No. 2) Act 2024 with effect from 23 July 2024.
• Statutory position — section 2(42A): only two holding periods from 23 July 2024 CBDT Circulars & InstructionsCuts both ways
  Is a listed bond still a long-term asset only after three years, and what about units of a listed business trust? My client transferred both in late 2024.
  From 23 July 2024 there are only two holding periods: twelve months for all listed securities and twenty-four months for everything else. The thirty-six month period is gone, so units of a listed business trust move from thirty-six months to twelve, and bonds, debentures and gold move from thirty-six months to twenty-four; unlisted shares and immovable property stay at twenty-four.
• Statutory position — Rule 8AA(5): whether the section 45(4) charge on the firm is short-term or long-term CBDT Circulars & InstructionsCuts both ways
  The firm has been charged under section 45(4) on a payout to a partner on reconstitution. Is that gain short-term or long-term, and how do I work out the split?
  You look through the charge to the assets the amount has been attributed to. Rule 8AA(5) deems the amount, or a part of it, to be from the transfer of a short-term capital asset where it is attributed to an asset that is short-term at the time of the section 45(4) taxation, to an asset forming part of a block of assets, or to a self-generated asset or self-generated goodwill; and to be from the transfer of a long-term capital asset where it is attributed to any other asset that is long-term at that time. One section 45(4) charge can therefore split into a short-term part and a long-term part.
• Statutory position — s.115C: the Chapter XII-A definitions, and the convertible-foreign-exchange condition that the whole chapter turns on CBDT Circulars & InstructionsCuts both ways
  My client is a person of Indian origin living in Dubai. He bought shares in an Indian listed company out of rupees lying in his NRO account. The assessing officer says Chapter XII-A does not apply to him at all and has taxed the gain at the ordinary rate. Is he right?
  On these facts, yes — and the reason is the funding, not the status. Section 115C(b) defines a "foreign exchange asset" as any specified asset "which the assessee has acquired or purchased with, or subscribed to in, convertible foreign exchange", so an asset bought out of rupee funds is not a foreign exchange asset, and nothing in Chapter XII-A — not s.115E, not s.115F, not s.115H — can reach it. Being a non-resident Indian within s.115C(e) is a necessary condition but never a sufficient one.
• Statutory position — section 55(2)(ac): the 31 January 2018 grandfathered cost, limb by limb CBDT Circulars & InstructionsCuts both ways
  My client bought listed shares in 2012 and sold them last year. How exactly do I work out the cost of acquisition under the grandfathering rule, and does the 31 January 2018 price simply replace the cost?
  No — the 31 January 2018 price does not replace the cost, and it is not a straight 'higher of cost or market' either. The cost is the HIGHER of (i) the actual cost of acquisition and (ii) the LOWER of (A) the fair market value and (B) the full value of consideration; fair market value for a share listed on 31 January 2018 is the highest price quoted on a recognised stock exchange on that date.
• Statutory position — section 47(xvii) with section 49(2AC): swapping SPV shares for business trust units is not a transfer, and the gain is deferred to the sale of the units CBDT Circulars & InstructionsCuts both ways
  My client is contributing his shares in a project company to a REIT and taking units in exchange. Is that a taxable transfer now?
  No. Section 47(xvii) takes out of section 45 any transfer of a capital asset, being a share of a special purpose vehicle, to a business trust in exchange for units allotted by that trust to the transferor, so no capital gain arises on the swap itself. The charge is deferred rather than forgiven: section 49(2AC) provides that where a unit of a business trust became the property of the assessee in consideration of a transfer referred to in section 47(xvii), the cost of acquisition of the unit is deemed to be the cost of acquisition to him of the share, so the whole of the accumulated gain surfaces when the units are sold.
• Statutory position — s.49(2AA) and s.2(42A) Explanation 1(i)(hb): stage two of the employee share charge, the cost of acquisition on sale and the holding period that runs from allotment CBDT Circulars & InstructionsCuts both ways
  I paid tax on my ESOP perquisite when I exercised. Now I have sold the shares. What is my cost of acquisition, and from what date does my holding period run?
  This is stage two. When you sell, the capital gain is the sale consideration MINUS the fair market value that was already taxed as your perquisite at stage one: s.49(2AA) fixes the cost of acquisition of a specified security or sweat equity share as "the fair market value which has been taken into account" for the purposes of s.17(2)(vi). The amount you actually paid for the shares is NOT your cost — the statute deliberately links the cost to the value already charged to salary, so that the same appreciation is not taxed twice. For the holding period, s.2(42A) Explanation 1(i)(hb) says it is reckoned from the DATE OF ALLOTMENT OR TRANSFER of the specified security or sweat equity shares, not from the date of grant and not from the date of vesting.
• Statutory position — restricted stock units: what s.17(2)(vi), Rule 3(8) and s.2(42A) actually say about them, and the express statement that no authority fixing the charging point at vesting was found CBDT Circulars & InstructionsCuts both waysNo later treatment found
  My client is paid partly in restricted stock units of a US parent. Everyone tells me RSUs are taxed on vesting rather than on exercise. Is there authority for that in Indian law?
  None has been found, and this entry — which is about stage one, the perquisite charge — says so expressly rather than reasoning by analogy from options. What the Act does say is this. Stage one, s.17(2)(vi), charges "the value of any specified security or sweat equity shares allotted or transferred, directly or indirectly, by the employer, or former employer, free of cost or at concessional rate to the assessee" — words wide enough on their face to catch shares of a foreign parent delivered to an Indian employee without payment. But the VALUATION machinery is written around an option: Explanation (c) values the security "on the date on which the option is exercised by the assessee", Explanation (e) defines "option" as "a right but not an obligation granted to an employee to apply for the specified security or sweat equity shares at a predetermined price", and Rule 3(8)(i) and Rule 3(9) both fix the fair market value "on the date on which the option is exercised by the employee". Stage two is clearer: s.49(2AA) makes the cost the value taken into account at stage one, and s.2(42A) Explanation 1(i)(hb) runs the holding period from the date of allotment or transfer.

Listed strongest first: Supreme Court, then High Court, then Tribunal, then CBDT. Nothing here has yet been read in full by a chartered accountant — open an entry to see where it came from.