Landmark Cases on Capital Gains

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

PCIT v. Smt. Renu Agarwal
153 Taxmann.com 578 · 2023 · High Court
18
citing judgments

Additions made by the Assessing Officer alleging penny stock transactions and bogus long-term capital gains are rightly deleted if there is no adverse comment from the stock exchange or the company, and no material relating to the assessee is found in the Investigation Wing Report.

Anvar Ali Poolakkodan v. ITO
344 CTR 551 · Reported
18
citing judgments

Interest awarded under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act in respect of enhanced compensation is considered part of the principal compensation, is taxable as capital gains, and is eligible for exemption under Section 10(37) if the acquired land was agricultural.

Karnataka in Bhoruka Engineering India Ltd. v. DCIT
356 ITR 25 · 2013 · High Court
18
citing judgments

Disallowing short-term capital loss on the sale of shares is unjustified when the shares were held as an investment and not for trading purposes.

CIT v. V.S. Dempo Company Ltd.
387 ITR 354 · 2016 · Supreme Court
18
citing judgments

Section 54E deduction is allowable against capital gains assessable under section 50 on depreciable assets. For other provisions, the asset remains a long-term capital asset despite being treated as short-term for section 50.

CIT v. Dalmia Investment Co. Ltd.
52 ITR 567 · 1964 · Supreme Court
18
citing judgments

Bonus shares are akin to splitting existing shares, not a receipt of new property. Therefore, there is no accretion of wealth or gift involved in their issuance.

S Gopal Reddy v. CIT
181 ITR 378 · 1990 · High Court
18
citing judgments

The six-month period for reinvesting capital gains under Section 54EC is calculated from the date of actual receipt of sale consideration, not the date of transfer or compulsory acquisition.

ACIT v. Biraj Investment Pvt. Ltd.
210 Taxmann 418 · 2012 · High Court
18
citing judgments

Transactions involving the sale of shares within the same group, especially when facilitated by a director's spouse being the MD of the counterparty, can be deemed a colorable device to evade tax on long-term capital gains if there's an absence of genuine delivery of shares.

Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay City-III v. Ratilal Tarachand Mehta (12.11
110 ITR 71 · 1977 · High Court
17
citing judgments

Lease premiums, salami, or pagadi received for granting tenancy rights are capital receipts, not revenue receipts. This premium is treated as a transfer of a capital asset, exigible to capital gains tax.