SHIV KUMAR JATIA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 10(2), NEW DELHI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that long-term capital loss arising from STT-paid share transactions should be allowed to be carried forward, as Section 74 of the Act cannot be rendered otiose. For the property sale, the Tribunal ruled that the holding period commences from the date of the initial agreement, thus qualifying the gains as long-term.
What were the facts?
The assessee claimed exemption for long-term capital gains on sale of shares where STT was paid, but sought to carry forward the resultant loss. In another appeal, the AO treated gains from property sale as short-term capital gains, arguing the holding period began from the last installment payment.
What were the issues?
Whether long-term capital loss from STT-paid share transactions is eligible for carry forward when the gains are exempt. Whether the holding period for capital gains on property begins from the date of the initial agreement or the last installment payment.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 10(38),Section 71,Section 74,Section 2(24),Section 2(14),Section 2(47)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(3)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- Vinod Kumar Jain v. CIT31 citing195 Taxmann 174 · 2012 · HC
- CIT v. Karthikeyan (G.R)28 citing201 ITR 866 · 1993 · SC
- Gopal Saran Narain Singh v. CIT9 citing3 ITR 237 · 1935
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘G’, NEW DELHI
Before: Sh. Bhavnesh SainiDr. B. R. R. Kumar
Heard together (2 matters)
Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.
Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member:
The present appeals have been filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A)-4, New Delhi dated 01.08.2019 for the A.Y. 2011-12 and the order of the ld. CIT (A)-60, Mumbai dated 30.11.2018 for the A.Y. 2013-14. 2. The relevant part of the Assessment Order required for adjudication of the issue is as under:
“It is noticed that the transactions of sale of shares were subject to Securities Transaction Tax (STT). Long-Term Capital Gain on transaction of sale of shares, where the transactions have suffered STT, is exempt from tax u/s 10(38) of the Act. Under the sche
The order continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
More judgments on Section 10(38)
- Shalin Jayantbhai Desai, Vadodara vs ACIT, Circle-4(2), Vadodara Present…ITA 2569/AHD/2026[2010-11]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2010-11
- Hetal Vinodchandra Sheth, Ahmedabad vs The ITO, Ward-5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2370/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Hetal Vinodchandra Sheth, Ahmedabad vs The ITO, Ward-5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2369/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Karan Dilipkumar Patel L/H of Late… vs Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Vapi…ITA 353/SRT/2024[2011-12]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2011-12
- Jay Patel, Raipur vs ITO, Ward-3(1), RaipurITA 684/RPR/2026[2015-16]Status: Heard12 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Sh Umang Uniyal vs. Commissioner Department Of Central Goods And Services TaxUttarakhand · 16 Oct 2026
- Paresh Textiles Prop Paresh Gudhka vs. Superintendent Range Iv Div VBombay · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S Palladium Constructions PVT LTD. vs. Principal Commissioner Of Central TaxKarnataka · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S. Vk Construction vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer - IiMadras · 15 Oct 2026
- Tvl. Sri Bhuvaneshwari And Co vs. The Deputy Commissioner (St)Madras · 15 Oct 2026