Landmark Cases on Capital Gains

208 decisions, ranked by how many judgments on BharatTax rely on them.

CIT v. V.R. Karpagam
373 ITR 127 · 2015 · High Court
40
citing judgments

The principles for exemption under Section 54 of the Income-tax Act apply equally to Section 54F, allowing exemption for multiple residential units received under a joint development agreement if the assessment year is prior to the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2014 amendment.

CIT v. J.R. Subramanya Bhat
165 ITR 571 · 1987 · High Court
39
citing judgments

Exemption under Section 54 of the Income-tax Act for capital gains invested in a new residential house is not denied even if the construction of the new house commenced before the sale of the original asset.

CIT v. Assam Petroleum Industries Pvt. Ltd.
262 ITR 587 · 2003 · High Court
39
citing judgments

The fiction created by Section 50(1) and (2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, applies only to the computation of capital gains under Sections 48 and 49, and not to other provisions. Section 54E is available for exemption irrespective of whether the asset is depreciable or not.

Vania Silk Mills (P.) Ltd. v. CIT
191 ITR 647 · 1991 · Supreme Court
38
citing judgments

Extinguishment of rights in a capital asset includes transfer and attracts capital gains computation provisions. Demolition and conversion of a building into scrap constitutes a form of transfer.

(i) CIT v. Smt. PushpaMalpani
20 Taxmann.com 597 · 2012 · High Court
38
citing judgments

Whether a sale of shares at an appreciated value is genuine is a question of fact, and the genuineness of a transaction cannot be dislodged based on mere presumptions without cogent proof.

Late Mir Gulam Ali Khan v. CIT
165 ITR 228 · 1987 · High Court
37
citing judgments

The term 'assessee' in Section 54 of the Income Tax Act should be interpreted liberally to include legal heirs, ensuring the exemption's object is not frustrated by overly strict interpretations.

P. Ltd. (1993) 201 ITR 894 (Karn.); CIT v. Markapakula Agamma
165 ITR 386 · 1987 · High Court
37
citing judgments

If the cost of acquiring tenancy rights cannot be determined, the consideration received from the surrender of those rights is not subject to capital gains tax.

Smt. Shashi Varma v. CIT
224 ITR 106 · 1997 · High Court
37
citing judgments

Expenditure incurred by an assessee towards payment of installments for acquiring a new residential property can be considered as investment for the purpose of claiming exemption under Section 54, even if the sale deed has not been registered. The assessee's claim for exemption under Section 54 can be allowed if the installments paid exceed the amount of capital gain.

Pr. CIT v. Prem Pal Gandhi
401 ITR 253 · 2018 · High Court
37
citing judgments

The case holds that a significant price escalation in shares, without plausible explanation tied to market practices, company fundamentals, or financials, may indicate the transaction is not genuine.

CIT v. V A Trivedi
172 ITR 95 · 1988 · High Court
37
citing judgments

The character of a transaction as an adventure in the nature of trade, or not, depends on the totality of circumstances, and no single test is sufficient. Specifically, for land, the court will consider its use for agricultural purposes prior to transfer and the intended future use by the purchaser.

CIT and Cadell Weaving Mill Co. P. Ltd. v. CIT
249 ITR 265 · 2001 · High Court
36
citing judgments

Capital receipts can be subjected to tax as income. The nature of receipts is determined by the purpose of payment.

ITO v. Sushila M. Jhaveri
107 ITD 327 · 2007 · ITAT
36
citing judgments

Two or more residential units with a common entrance, kitchen, and passage are considered a single residential house for the purpose of claiming exemption under Section 54/54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Principal Commissioner of Income-tax v. Kuntala Mohapatra
160 Taxmann.com 608 · 2024 · Supreme Court
36
citing judgments

Taxpayers qualify for exemption under Section 10(38) for long-term capital gains if shares were purchased via account payee mode, held in a demat account for over 12 months, and sold through a recognised stock exchange after paying STT.

Delhi in CIT v. Ravinder Kumar Arora
15 Taxmann.com 307 · 2011 · High Court
35
citing judgments

Deduction under Section 54F is available to an assessee for an investment made jointly with their spouse, even if the assessee only contributes a portion of the investment. The benefit of the deduction is not restricted to the assessee's share of the investment.

68 of the Act. 18. Sanjay Kaul v. PCIT
199 Taxmann.com 470 · 2020 · High Court
35
citing judgments

Short Term Capital Loss (STCL) arising from transactions in penny stocks is rightly disallowed when the assessing officer concludes the transaction was a pre-arranged sham to convert unaccounted money into accounted money.

Bawa Shiv Charan Singh v. CIT (1984) 149 ITR 29 (Delhi); CIT v. Mangtu Ram Jaipuria
201 ITR 894 · 1993 · High Court
35
citing judgments

Consideration received for the surrender of tenancy rights is not subject to capital gains tax if the cost of acquisition of such rights cannot be determined.

Potla Nageswara Rao v. DCIT
365 ITR 249 · 2014 · High Court
35
citing judgments

Handing over possession of property under a Development Agreement-cum-GPA in exchange for built-up area constitutes a transfer of a capital asset, triggering capital gains tax, as it satisfies the conditions under Section 2(47)(v) read with Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act.

CIT v. C. Jaichander
370 ITR 579 · 2015 · High Court
35
citing judgments

An assessee is eligible for deduction under section 54EC even if the investment of capital gains is made in two different financial years, provided the investment is within six months from the date of transfer of the capital asset.

Mrs. Madhu Kaul v. CIT
363 ITR 54 · 2014 · High Court
35
citing judgments

The period of holding a flat for capital gains purposes commences from the date of the allotment letter and the first installment payment, not from the later date of possession or registration.

CIT v. H.K. Kapoor
234 ITR 753 · 1998 · High Court
34
citing judgments

Construction of a new house can commence before the sale of the original asset for availing exemption under section 54 or 54F of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

CIT v. Vijay Flexible Containers
186 ITR 693 · 1990 · High Court
33
citing judgments

Income received from relinquishment of a right in property, such as compensation received due to breach of an agreement to purchase immovable property, is taxable as capital gains. The right acquired under a sale agreement is considered a right to property, not merely a right to sue.

Seshasayee Steels (P.) Ltd. v. CIT
421 ITR 46 · 2020 · Supreme Court
33
citing judgments

Handing over possession under a Joint Development Agreement (JDA) does not constitute a 'transfer' under Section 2(47)(v) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, read with Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act.

Gopal Purohit v. JCIT
29 SOT 117 · 2009 · ITAT
33
citing judgments

The revenue is debarred from taking inconsistent stands on similar facts across different assessment years, adhering to the rule of consistency. Short-term capital gains are assessable under the head 'Capital Gains' only.

PCIT v. Vembu Vaidyanathan
413 ITR 248 · 2019 · High Court
32
citing judgments

For capital gains computation, the date of allotment of a residential unit under a construction scheme is the date of acquisition, not the date of agreement or possession. This applies even if possession is delivered later, as the allotment letter confers the right to hold the property.

CIT v. Dr. T. K. Dayalu
14 Taxmann.com 120 · 2011 · High Court
32
citing judgments

Capital gains arise at the time of execution of a Joint Development Agreement (JDA) and handing over of possession of property to the developer, due to the concept of part performance.

Pune) 98 TTJ 179 (c) Rubab M Kazerani v. JCIT (ITAT, Mum-TM)
294 ITR 196 · 2007 · Reported
31
citing judgments

A transaction involving the transfer of property, even if not a sale in the conventional sense, can fall under the definition of 'transaction' as contemplated in Section 2(47)(v) of the Income Tax Act. This includes situations where consideration is received in the form of built-up area under a development agreement.

CIT v. Mohanbhai Pamabhai
91 ITR 393 · 1973 · High Court
31
citing judgments

The distribution of capital assets to a partner upon the dissolution of a partnership firm does not constitute a 'transfer' and is therefore not taxable as capital gains.

Vinod Kumar Jain v. CIT
344 ITR 501 · 2012 · High Court
31
citing judgments

The holding period of an asset, particularly a flat allotted by the DDA, commences from the date of the allotment letter, not the date of possession or subsequent sale deed registration.

Tilokchand & Sons. v. ITO
413 ITR 189 · 2019 · High Court
31
citing judgments

A residential house for the purpose of Section 54 of the Income Tax Act can include more than one or plural residential houses, prior to April 1, 2015.

22. In CIT v. Bombay Burinah Trading Corporation
161 ITR 386 · 1986 · Supreme Court
30
citing judgments

Payments received for the sterilization, destruction, or loss of a capital asset are considered capital receipts. This includes compensation for the extinguishment or sterilization of a profit-earning source.

Anil Nandkishore Goyal v. ACIT
29 Taxmann.com 402 · 2013 · High Court
30
citing judgments

Where an assessee has filed all documents evidencing purchase and sale of shares, and statements relied upon by the authorities do not name the assessee, the revenue's appeal is dismissed.

PCIT v. Renu Agarwal
153 Taxmann.com 579 · 2023 · Supreme Court
29
citing judgments

The Supreme Court dismissed a Special Leave Petition upholding the High Court's decision that additions made by the Assessing Officer on account of bogus Long Term Capital Gains (LTCG) were not justified, particularly when the scrip was actively traded and the Assessing Officer lacked sufficient adverse material.

Ketan B. Mehta v. ACIT
348 ITR 325 · 2012 · High Court
29
citing judgments

Earnest money received on the sale of an asset, when invested in specified bonds under Section 54EC, is eligible for the benefit of Section 54EC, even in the context of reopening an assessment.

Mrs. Sakunthala Vedachalam v. Mrs. Vanitha Manickavasagam
369 ITR 558 · 2014 · High Court
28
citing judgments

Land classified as agricultural in revenue records, evidenced by documents like Adangal, is treated as agricultural land and profits from its sale are not subject to capital gains tax.

Puneet Singh v. CIT, Karnal
415 ITR 215 · 2019 · High Court
28
citing judgments

Delayed payment of compensation for compulsory acquisition of land, including interest, is taxable as income, especially after amendments to Section 56(2)(viii) and Section 145B(1). This treatment applies to amounts received post-amendment, distinguishing it from pre-amendment rulings.

CIT v. Attili N. Rao
252 ITR 880 · 2001 · Supreme Court
28
citing judgments

Capital gains are computed on the full price realized from the sale of an asset, even if certain dues are deducted from that price by a third party before payment to the assessee. Deductions for such dues are not permissible when calculating capital gains.

Addl. CIT v. K.S. Gupta
119 ITR 372 · 1979 · High Court
27
citing judgments

Interest paid on borrowed funds for acquiring an asset should be included in the cost of acquisition for the purpose of determining capital gains. The actual cost includes all expenditure incurred to bring the asset into existence, as understood in commercial practice.

CIT v. Smt. Bharati C. Kothari (Cal)
244 ITR 352 · 2000 · High Court
27
citing judgments

An assessee is entitled to a deduction under section 54 if substantial steps have been taken towards acquiring a new residential property, even if the sale deed has not yet been executed, provided the intention to purchase and invest is evident.

CIT v. Coromandel Industries Ltd.
370 ITR 586 · 2015 · High Court
27
citing judgments

Investment in bonds for Section 54EC deduction made within six months from the date of transfer of the original asset is considered proper, even if made in different financial years.

Miss Dhun Dadabhoy Kapadia v. CIT
63 ITR 651 · 1967 · Supreme Court
27
citing judgments

The date of acquisition of shares, particularly in the context of rights issues, is the date the company's offer to subscribe to shares is made, not the date of allotment, physical issuance, or payment.

V.M Salgaocar & Bros (P) Ltd. v. CIT
247 ITR 210 · 2001 · High Court
27
citing judgments

An assessee cannot claim deduction under section 54F if they do not solely own the property at the time of sale, as ownership is a prerequisite for claiming the deduction. This principle applies even after amendments to section 54F regarding ownership of one house.

CIT v. Dinesh Verma
60 Taxmann.com 461 · 2015 · High Court
27
citing judgments

Deduction under Section 54B for capital gains on sale of agricultural land cannot be allowed if the new property is purchased exclusively in the name of the assessee's wife.

Dr. Smt. P. K. Vasanthi Rangarajan v. CIT
23 Taxmann.com 299 · 2012 · High Court
27
citing judgments

An assessee can claim the benefit of investment in multiple flats under Section 54F of the Act, as there is no inhibition against claiming such benefit for multiple properties purchased for residential purposes. Fractional ownership does not equate to exclusive ownership for the purpose of denying exemption under Section 54F.

Addl. CIT v. Mohanbhai Pamabhai
165 ITR 166 · 1987 · Supreme Court
26
citing judgments

When a partner retires from a partnership firm and receives consideration, including a proportionate share of goodwill, it is not considered a transfer for capital gains tax purposes.

CIT v. Trishul Investments Ltd.
305 ITR 434 · 2008 · High Court
26
citing judgments

Interest paid on loans borrowed for the purpose of investment in shares is allowed as part of the cost of acquisition eligible for deduction while computing capital gains under Section 48. The intention of the assessee at the time of acquisition of shares determines the nature of the gain.

Raja Bahadur Visheshwar Singh v. CIT
73 ITR 652 · 1969 · Supreme Court
26
citing judgments

Bonus shares received by a dealer in shares constitute a capital asset unless specifically converted into stock-in-trade. The sale of such bonus shares attracts capital gains tax.

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax v. L.H. Sugar Factory Pvt. Ltd.
392 ITR 568 · 2017 · High Court
26
citing judgments

Income from the sale of carbon credits is capital in nature. This classification is supported by judicial precedent.

CIT v. Gemini Pictures P. Ltd.
220 ITR 43 · 1996 · Supreme Court
25
citing judgments

Whether land is agricultural or a capital asset is a question of fact determined by a realistic consideration of all facts and circumstances, including the understanding of the parties to the transaction.

Kartikeya v. Sarabhai vs. CIT
228 ITR 163 · 1997 · Supreme Court
25
citing judgments

Extinguishment of substantial rights of a shareholder in an investee company due to reduction of share capital is considered an "extinguishment" within the meaning of 'transfer' under Section 2(47) of the Income Tax Act, even if a third party is not involved.

CIT v. N.S.S. Investments Pvt. Ltd.
277 ITR 149 · 2005 · High Court
25
citing judgments

The nature of gains arising from the transfer of shares and securities depends on the assessee's intention at the time of acquisition. If shares are held for earning dividends and not as stock-in-trade, profits on their sale are treated as capital gains, not business income.