As this is mainly conversational, this will be a very difficult one to prove either way, but I would have though that both uses have been around for quite a long time.

At the British National Corpus (mainly from the 80s and 90s) there are about a dozen instances of 'thanks for that' - several of radio DJs thanking callers, and a couple from training sessions, thanking people for their input, where I presume no irony is intended (you can click on the numbers to see the source):

'Right, thanks for that, we'll, we'll come back to that. '
'Thanks for that group. '
'Oh that will be splendid er well thanks for that, that's er that's great obviously'

There are a couple with the meaning you suggest:

'Well, thanks for that,’ he murmured drily. '

But there are also occasions when it is followed by a noun with this meaning:

' ‘Well, thanks for that brilliant piece of help,’ he sneered. '

So at the BNC, at least, the majority seem to be in the non-ironical sense. And I would go along with that - when thanking someone for contributing to a discussion, or for giving a piece of information, in a meeting for example, 'thanks for that' without any loaded extra meaning is quite normal, as is using it to thank someone who has just done something for you when it is obvious what 'that' is referring to. It all depends on context and intonation - in your meaning it would probably go down at the end; in the straight meaning, it's more likely to go up.

http://bnc.bl.uk/saraWeb.php?qy=thanks+for+that&mysubmit=Go

Early examples at Google Books not prefaced by 'We give thee' are rare, but those that do exist don't seem to have the ironic sense:

'Thanks — thanks for that !" exclaimed the Aztec, drawing the priest more closely to him ; and, with a confidence worthy a truer heart than that which received it, laying his head on his bosom ; " Thanks for that ! It tells me, my gods have still a ...' - Montezuma, a Romance, Edward Maturin , 1845

'Thanks for that, my pet ; so must a reasonable maiden think. Fill your glasses. Long life to the bride, and the bridegroom too !' - (a father talking to his daughter) - The Gift: a Christmas and New Year's Present ', edited by Eliza Leslie, 1845.

' “Thanks for that,” said Lord de Yonge, with something of ecstasy. “Thanks for that. Now let that villain do his worst; the Lord Chancellor of England is now the exclusive guardian.', The Two Cosmos: A Tale of Fifty Years Ago, 1861.

And then there's Shakespeare -'Thanks for that', Macbeth to the First Murderer after he has killed Banquo on Macbeth's orders, presumably sincerely.

So yes, it often was intended as put down, but my impression is that it has always been used in its straight sense as well. And the put down could just as easily include a noun phrase:

"Thanks for that piece of scintillating information!"
"Well, thanks for that remark, it was really helpful. Not!"

Here's an example of a peculiarly British use of 'gift' as a verb, escaping from the sports pages to politics - 'She' is Teresa May, the British Home Secretary, Nigel Farage is the leader of the anti-immigration UKIP:

"With all the weight of her office the home secretary has turned non-EU students into another migration bogey, akin to Ukip’s Rumanians and Bulgarians. She has gifted Nigel Farage with an issue he can run whenever he wants, either before the election or under a Tory-Ukip coalition government. " The Guardian, 7 Jan, 2015

The meaning here is:

"informal - Inadvertently allow (an opponent) to have something:
[with two objects]: the goalkeeper gifted Liverpool their last-minute winner"
Oxford Dictionaries Online

@HS - Americans seem to go for 'Wrack and ruin', British online dictionaries for 'rack and ruin', with 'wrack' as a variant. This is the case at Oxford, Cambridge, Macmillan, Longman and Chambers. Only Collins lists it under 'wrack'.

Oxford give the origins as 'rack from Old English 'wræc' - 'vengeance'; related to wreak'. Etymology Online goes along with the idea that 'wrack' here in 'wrack and ruin' comes from Middle Dutch 'wrak' - 'wreck', perhaps influenced by OE 'wræc'.
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=wrack

If you use 'rack' for the verb, and 'wrack' for the noun, I don't think anyone can naysay that. But I think that there are arguments for the variants as well.

The Online Etymology Dictionary considers 'wrack your brains' 'erroneous', but
both Burchfield and Quinion were / have been contributors to the OED, and Quinion has made himself a bit of a reputation as an etymologist. If they say it's somewhat more complicated than that, I'm inclined to believe them.

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/rack#rack (see usage note)

According to Oxford Online, both are acceptable, wrack being a less frequent variation of the verb rack, in the meaning of 'cause extreme pain, anguish, or distress', and in a usage note they say:

'The relationship between the forms rack and wrack is complicated. ... Figurative senses of the verb ... can, however, be spelled either rack or wrack: thus racked with guilt or wracked with guilt; rack your brains or wrack your brains. In addition, the phrase rack and ruin can also be spelled wrack and ruin.'

Macmillan, Longman and Collins all accept wrack as an alternative spelling, although Chambers say it is usually regarded as an error.

Back in 1755, Samuel Johnson also listed 'wrack' with the meaning of to torture or torment, but says that it 'is commonly written rack'. - http://johnsonsdictionaryonline.com/?page_id=7070&i=2302

Michael Quinion at World Wide Words, also tends ton go along with this tolerant approach, suggesting that there seem to be good arguments on either side. - http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-wra1.htm

and he quotes Burchfield,from the 3rd ed of Fowler's:

'All the complexities of this exceedingly complicated word cannot be set down here: spare an hour (at least) to consult a large dictionary, esp the OED'

Daily Writing Tips has no such doubts, though - http://www.dailywritingtips.com/wracking-or-racking-your-brain/

Various tries at Ngram suggest that the wrack versions started around the beginning of the 20th century, and are far less common,with the 'wracked with' versions being a bit more relatively common than 'wrack your brains'.

The earliest 'wrack' version I can find at Google Books is from 1867, from the Dartmouth Magazine (US), although there's one with 'wreck' from the London Chronicle of 1759 - 'but whilst you wreck your brains, to construct machines to gain power ...'. But 'rack ' beats that by ten years, with this in The Monthly Review of 1749 - 'Now which of these was Celia's case, (Tho' all are common to her race) I shall not rack my brains about'. Most 19th century variations on (w)rack(ed) my/your/his brains at Google Books have the 'rack' spelling.

I'd certainly never heard this before. Oxford Concise has nothing in the sense of reply, but funnily enough Oxford Advanced Learner's does - calling it Indian English and rather formal, giving the examples:

"Exellent openings—kindly revert with your updated CV."
"We request you to kindly revert back if you have any further requirements."

There's a bit about in this book, published in Singapore - "English as it is Broken 2' , where it calls it 'local usage'- http://books.google.pl/books?id=RmehtgPM1H8C&pg=PA94&dq=%22revert+to+us%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Jf2mVLLjD8XwUsCrgaAL&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=%22revert%20to%20us%22&f=false

Not everyone in India likes this use, though - http://www.newindianexpress.com/education/edex/Revert-Should-Not-Be-Used-to-Mean-Reply/2014/03/03/article2083266.ece

Thanks, HS

From 1845 - http://books.google.pl/books?id=NBQNAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA4&dq=%22Nella+too+was+glad+to+be+spared+all+speech,+and+the+cousins+watched+on+in+silence%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=zO-dVLGQK4X_UuOegbgL&ved=0CB8Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22Nella%20too%20was%20glad%20to%20be%20spared%20all%20speech%2C%20and%20the%20cousins%20watched%20on%20in%20silence%22&f=false

I've noticed that one Kernel Sanders thinks I'm 'too obsessed with specialist book definitions and don't pay enough attention to actual use', and that I should trust what occurs in specific instances. Oh, but I do. When I say that I've got three sisters and that one of them's got blue eyes, another's got a vicious temper, and the third's got naturally wavy hair, I know perfectly well that the only difference with 'have' here is one of register (formality).

But as someone who teaches foreigners English and writes a grammar blog, I have to base my arguments on something rather more solid than a hunch. And in any case the 'specialist books' I referred to are based on corpus linguistics - in other words how people actually use the language.

One problem is that every attempt here to explain some 'subtle difference' between 'have' and 'have got' involves some interpretation based on obtaining something, and as my examples above show, grammatical possession is about much more than owning or obtaining something. And what about 'have got to' and 'have to' - where's the subtle difference there, I wonder?

And do I trust books written by people who have made a long study of language more than a few theories made up on the hoof on this forum to explain an idiomatic use that doesn't need any explaining? You bet I do.

But what really puzzled me was this somewhat ad hominem statement - 'It's people like you that would tell TS Eliot to change "Let us go then, you and I" to "Let us go then, you and me" which would positively screw up one of the best loved lines in English literature, just because of your preposterous need to cling to the rules in all instances rather than using your ears and your mind and treating rules as the rough guidelines they are.'

What's this got to do with anything? Firstly, this is a complete non-sequitur. Trying to understand what a phrase means has nothing to do with a 'preposterous need to cling to the rules in all instances rather than using your ears and your mind and treating rules as the rough guidelines they are.'

And secondly, as most of my comments on this forum show, I am forever defending actual usage as being more important than formal rules, and I never tell others what to say, and certainly not a poet. And nor would I ever use an argument such as 'it's people like you who ...'. Apart from the fact that it's not very polite, how could I possibly know?

http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=coming+tomorrow%2Ccomes+tomorrow%2Cwill+come+tomorrow&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Ccoming%20tomorrow%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Ccomes%20tomorrow%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Cwill%20come%20tomorrow%3B%2Cc0

According to David Crystal, in 'The Stories of English', present continuous (with present reference) started being used in the Middle English period, at much the same time as the auxiliaries started to be used in much the way we use them today.

On the other hand, passive continuous didn't start getting used till the nineteenth century. It doesn't appear in Jane Austen apparently, and its use was controversial.

I checked the KJV (at Project Gutenberg) for 'coming'. Most instances are of participle use, or after see, as here:

'I saw the son of Jesse coming to Nob, to Ahimelech the son of Ahitub'

but there are a few past continuous and a couple in present continuous:

5:6 When Jesus saw him lie, and knew that he had been now a long time in that case, he saith unto him, Wilt thou be made whole? 5:7 The impotent man answered him, Sir, I have no man, when the water is troubled, to put me into the pool: but while I am coming, another steppeth down before me.

13:1 This is the third time I am coming to you. In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.

And a few with future reference:

44:7 And who, as I, shall call, and shall declare it, and set it in order for me, since I appointed the ancient people? and the things that are coming, and shall come, let them shew unto them.

6:31 And he said unto them, Come ye yourselves apart into a desert place, and rest a while: for there were many coming and going, and they had no leisure so much as to eat.

23:29 For, behold, the days are coming, in the which they shall say, Blessed are the barren, and the wombs that never bare, and the paps which never gave suck.

5:25 Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live.

5:28 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, 5:29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

At Google Books I found an instance of 'future in the past' from 1688:

'And Mr. Green said, He knew of Twelve that were coming next Morning to vote for Sir Eliab Harvey.' - Journals of the House of Commons 1688

And these, with future reference, from 1800-1849:

'We'll agree that way,then,” he says. “Kit's coming tomorrow morning, I know.' - Dickens, The Old Curiosity Shop, 1841

'Sound the gay rebeck, and banish all sorrow,
For Christinas, King Christmas, is coming tomorrow ! '- The Living Age, 1845

'... you must not go tomorrow, for William is coming tomorrow evening' - The American Review, 1846

'Miss Kirkpatrick is coming tomorrow.' - Cornhill Magazine, 1854

' "Oh, yes," he said, " they are coming tomorrow." ' Dickens, 1870

But there also quite a few with 'comes tomorrow':

'O! my dear master, wait but this day — the Marquis of A—— comes tomorrow, and a' will be remedied.' - Sir Walter Scott, Tales of my landlord, 1823

'Her name is Miss Hilton, and she comes tomorrow.' - The Living Age 1850

and only one for 'will come tomorrow' where we might use continuous today:

'Upon the morrow he was there again from sunrise until night ; and still at night he laid him down to rest, and muttered, " She will come tomorrow !" ' - Dickens, Master Humphrey's Clock, 1847

It looks to me rather as though present simple was earlier used with this meaning rather than 'will'; most of the examples of 'will come' I can find do not have this idea of a future arrangement.