← All Phrases

“long term capital gain”

Capital GainsSection 2(29A)Section 2(29A)4,892 judgments

The decision most relied on for long term capital gain is PCIT v. Swati Bajaj (139 Taxmann.com 352), cited in 443 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on long term capital gain

PCIT v. Swati Bajaj
139 Taxmann.com 352 · 2022 · High Court
443
citing judgments

Tax authorities are entitled to examine surrounding circumstances and apply the test of human probabilities to determine the genuineness of long-term capital gains arising from the sale of manipulated penny stock, even if prima facie documents appear to support the transaction.

CIT v. Shyam R. Pawar
54 Taxmann.com 108 · 2015 · High Court
279
citing judgments

Transactions involving the purchase and sale of shares cannot be considered bogus where the assessee provides documentary evidence, unless the revenue brings substantial evidence on record to reject such proof. This principle is consistently applied in cases concerning claims of bogus long-term capital gains arising from penny stock transactions.

Sanjay Bimalchand Jain v. PCIT-1, Nagpur
89 Taxmann.com 196 · 2018 · High Court
251
citing judgments

The exemption for long-term capital gains on share transactions is unavailable if the assessee fails to discharge the onus of proving the genuineness of gains arising from dubious share transactions designed to convert unaccounted income into tax-exempt capital gains. Courts will uphold an assessment based on the Revenue's evidence of price rigging or penny stock manipulation if the assessee cannot provide cogent evidence for the abnormal rise in share value.

PCIT v. Krishna Devi
126 Taxmann.com 80 · 2021 · High Court
249
citing judgments

The genuineness of share transactions, particularly those generating long-term capital gains, cannot be rejected solely based on general investigation reports, third-party statements, or a mere increase in share price, when the assessee provides comprehensive documentary evidence, without the Revenue bringing substantial evidence to the contrary.

CIT v. Jamnadevi Agarwal
328 ITR 656 · 2010 · High Court
230
citing judgments

When faced with allegations of bogus long-term capital gains from penny stocks, the Assessing Officer must discharge the onus of proving that the assessee's transactions were not genuine. The assessee can rely on the principle of preponderance of probability, and the Revenue must present substantial evidence to establish that the transactions were a colourable device or that the assessee was an entry operator.

Pr.CIT v. Lata Jain
384 ITR 543 · 2016 · High Court
174
citing judgments

In a search assessment under Section 153A, no additions can be made for assessment years where assessments have already been concluded, unless incriminating material related to undisclosed income for those years is found during the search operation.

ITO, 19(3) (4) Mumbai v. Shamim M Bharwani
69 Taxmann.com 65 · 2016 · Reported
142
citing judgments

Long Term Capital Gains (LTCG) from penny stock transactions are liable to be treated as bogus and added back under Section 68 as unexplained cash credits, especially when evidence suggests the involvement of entry operators providing accommodation entries.

Mukesh R.Marolia v. Addl. CIT
6 SOT 247 · 2006 · ITAT
139
citing judgments

The department must substantiate its allegations of a bogus long term capital gain scheme; if not substantiated, the addition made by the Assessing Officer for purported bogus LTCG derived from the purchase/sale of shares cannot be sustained. An assessee's claim for long term capital gains exemption on share transactions should be allowed where documentation supports the transactions.

Judgments citing long term capital gain

Srinivas Shah Radraraju, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 957/HYD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.957/Hyd/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2014-15) Srinivas Shah Rudraraju Vs. Dcit, Circle-2(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan :Afcpr1979L] (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao,Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Dr.Sachin Kumar, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 15/01/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 05/02/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.03.2019 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Ld.Cit(A)]-2, Guntur, Pertaining To A.Y.2014-15. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That, The Assessee Is An Individual, Filed His Return Of Income For The A.Y.2014-15 On 31.03.2015, Admitting Total Income Of Rs.53,50,976/-. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Cass For The Reason ‘Suspicious Long Term Capital Gain On Shares’ & During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, The Assessing Officer, Noticed That The 2 Srinivas Shah Rudra Raju

For Appellant: Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao,ARFor Respondent: Dr.Sachin Kumar, DR
Section 68

A.Y.2014-15 on 31.03.2015, admitting total income of Rs.53,50,976/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS for the reason ‘suspicious long term capital gain on shares’ and during the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer, noticed that the 2 Srinivas Shah Rudra Raju assessee had declared long ... recorded from certain individuals, including Shri Sanjay Vora, Regional Director, East Zone of M/s Anand Rathi Shares & Stock Brokers and observed that the long-term capital gains declared by the assessee is bogus in nature and therefore, called upon the assessee, to explain as to why addition should

ACIT, Circle-1(1), Rajkot vs. Khodidas Ganeshbhai Sakariya, Rajkot

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 23/RJT/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot03 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 23/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2015-16) (Hybrid Hearing) Assistant Commissioner Of Income Vs. Khodidas Ganeshbhai Sakariya Tax, Circle – 1(1), Street No. 2, “Bhumi Krupa”, Room No. 502, Aayakar Bhavan, University Road, Bombay Race Course Ring Road, Housing Society, Rajkot – 360001 Rajkot - 360005 Gujarat Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aiapp6533D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. Cit (Dr) Respondent By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld. Ar Date Of Hearing : 04 /11 /2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 03 / 02 /2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre [(In Short “Nfac/Ld. Cit(A)”] Vide Order Dated 10.11.2023, Which In Turn Assessment Order Passed U/S. 144 R.W.S. 263 Vide Order Dated 30.03.2022 By Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department / Assessing Officer Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”) 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Revenue Are As Follows: 1) The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Quashing Order U/S. 144 R.W.S. 263 Of The Act Dated 30.03.2022 When Departmental Appeal Against The Order Of The

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. CIT (DR)For Respondent: Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld. AR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 263Section 54Section 54B

index cost of acquisition of Rs. 9,19,99,641/- and exemption u/s.54 B of Act of Rs. 1,28,57,670/- offered long term capital gain of Rs. 44,11,688/- 3. The assessment in case of appellant was originally finalized vide order passed ... estimating cost of acquisition of property at Rs.37,637/- as per valuation report of Assistant Valuation Officer. Thus, the AO recalculated long term capital gain at Rs.9,60,25,927/- as against the same calculated in return of income at Rs.44,11,688/- and thereby added difference LTCG