← 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

Jagruti Bharat Shah, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-19(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 8226/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2011-12 Jagruti Bharat Shah Income Tax Officer-19(3)(1), 83 30 Rekha Bldg, Mumbai Vs. Rak Road, Wadala, Mumbai - 400031 [Pan: Aaqps1580D] (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Mr. Dhaval Shah & Ms. Tisha Bagh, Advocates Revenue : Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr. Dr. Date Of Hearing : 28.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.01.2026 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Addl/Jcit (A)-2, Lucknow, Vide Order No. Itba/Apl/S/250/2025- 26/1081211974(1), Dated 26.09.2025, Passed Against The Assessment Order By Income Tax Officer, Ward-19(2)(1), Mumbai, U/S. 147 R.W.S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 26.12.2018 For Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. Grounds Taken By Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: “1. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & In Facts In Passing The Order U/S. 250 Of The Act Dated 26.09.2025 Dismissing The Appeal Filed By The Appellant & Confirming The Order Passed By The Ld. Ao U/S 143(3) R.W.S 147 Of The Act Which Is Bad & Invalid In The Eyes Of Law. 2. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & In Facts In Not Appreciating That The Assessment Order Passed Is In Violation Of Principles Of Natural Justice.

For Appellant: Mr. Dhaval Shah and Ms. Tisha Bagh, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 68Section 69C

merits. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed as not pressed”. The issue involved in the present appeal is in respect of addition made towards long term capital gain earned by the assessee on scrip alleged to be a penny stock, i.e., VAS Infrastructure ltd. Ld. Assessing Officer made the addition

Amarjit Singh Marwaha, Shimla vs. ITO, National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1379/CHANDI/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadavआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1379/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Shri Amarjit Singh Marwaha, The Ito, Cottage No.1, Sadhora, Vs Ward-1, Mashobra, Baldeyan, Shimla. Shimla. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aeepm0161N अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Vishal Mohan Sr.Advocate, With Shri Abhinav Bijwaria, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. Cit Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 21.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.01.2026

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Mohan Sr.Advocate, with Shri Abhinav Bijwaria, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT Sr.DR
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 45Section 54Section 54F

having 50% share. This house was sold for a consideration of Rs.77,50,000/- and after giving benefit of indexed cost, Long Term Capital Gain comes to Rs.28,65,000/- which has escaped assessment. 6. After hearing the assessee, ld. AO has passed the impugned assessment order ... 144B of the Income Tax Act. The ld. AO has taken A.Y.2013-14 3 cognizance of the computation made by the assessee of alleged Long Term Capital Gain. The AO has observed that 50% share of the property falls in the hands of the assessee, thus, total sale consideration was Rs.38

Yogesh Jagannath Satav, Pune vs. ITO, Ward-12(4), Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2022/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2022/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Yogesh Jagannath Satav, The Income Tax Officer, Fadai Chowk, Nagar Road, Ward – 12(4), Pune Wagholi, Taluka-Haveli, Vs. Pune-412207 Pan : Bbtps3761B अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Digambar Surwase Department By : Shri Manish Mehta Date Of Hearing : 20-01-2026 Date Of 28-01-2026 Pronouncement : आदेश / Order Per Astha Chandra, Jm : The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 12.06.2025 Of The Ld. Additional/Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Chennai [“Addl./Jcit(A)”] Pertaining To Assessment Year (“Ay”) 2014-15. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Cit(A) (National Faceless Assessment Centre) Erred In Dismissing The Appeal Of Appellant Even Though Form-5 Under Direct Taxes Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme Was Not Issued The Appellant By Jurisdictional Commissioner Of Income Tax. The Appellant Prays That Appeal May Be Restored Back To File To Of Cit(A) For Hearing The Appeal On Merits. 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Order Passed Under Section 250 By Cit(A) Nfac, Delhi Dismissing The Appeal Is Wholly Illegal, Unlawful & Against The Principal Of Natural Justice. The Appellant Prays For Just, Fair & Appropriate Relief. 3. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Cit(A) Nfac Erred In Not Passing A Speaking Order On The Grounds Raised By The Appellant Before Nafc. The Appellant Prays For Just, Fair & Appropriate Relief. 4. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Appellant Prays That Appeal Deemed To Be Withdrawn, May Be Revived.

For Appellant: Shri Digambar SurwaseFor Respondent: Shri Manish Mehta
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 234ASection 234BSection 250

r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the “Act”) by making an addition of Rs.55,50,000/- on account of Long Term Capital Gain against which the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. Addl./JCIT(A). In the meantime, the assessee during the course of appellate proceedings, opted

Fort Canning Credit Investments Pte. Ltd., Singapore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax (International Taxation) - 2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2104/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jan 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2022-23 Fort Canning Investments Assistant Commissioner Of Pte. Ltd. Income-Tax (International 260 Orchard Road, #14-02 Taxation) - 2(3)(1) Vs. The Heeren, Singapore, Mumbai Singapore – 238855 (Pan: Aaccf9284G) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2022-23 Fort Canning Credit Assistant Commissioner Of Investments Pte. Ltd. Income-Tax (International 260 Orchard Road #14-02 Taxation) - 2(3)(1) Vs. The Heeren, Singapore, Mumbai Singapore – 238855 (Pan: Aadcf7866R) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Dhanesh Bafna, Ms. Priyanka Agarwala, Ms.Hirali Desai, Ms. Nidhi Agarwal & Shri Yogesh Malpani, Cas Revenue : Shri Satya Pal Kumar, Cit Dr & Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 29.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.01.2026 Fort Canning Investments Pte. Ltd. & Fort Canning Credit Investments Pte. Ltd. Ay 2022-23

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh BafnaFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar, CIT DR and Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 234BSection 270A

year under consideration, assessee filed its return of income on 29.11.2022 reporting total income at Rs.1025,08,95,493/- which included long term capital gain of Rs.1013.69 crores and interest income of Rs.11.39 crores. In the same return, assessee claimed following incomes as not taxable in India in view

Fort Canning Investments Pte. Ltd., Singapore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax (International Taxation) - 2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2103/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jan 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2022-23 Fort Canning Investments Assistant Commissioner Of Pte. Ltd. Income-Tax (International 260 Orchard Road, #14-02 Taxation) - 2(3)(1) Vs. The Heeren, Singapore, Mumbai Singapore – 238855 (Pan: Aaccf9284G) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2022-23 Fort Canning Credit Assistant Commissioner Of Investments Pte. Ltd. Income-Tax (International 260 Orchard Road #14-02 Taxation) - 2(3)(1) Vs. The Heeren, Singapore, Mumbai Singapore – 238855 (Pan: Aadcf7866R) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Dhanesh Bafna, Ms. Priyanka Agarwala, Ms.Hirali Desai, Ms. Nidhi Agarwal & Shri Yogesh Malpani, Cas Revenue : Shri Satya Pal Kumar, Cit Dr & Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 29.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.01.2026 Fort Canning Investments Pte. Ltd. & Fort Canning Credit Investments Pte. Ltd. Ay 2022-23

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh BafnaFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar, CIT DR and Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 234BSection 270A

year under consideration, assessee filed its return of income on 29.11.2022 reporting total income at Rs.1025,08,95,493/- which included long term capital gain of Rs.1013.69 crores and interest income of Rs.11.39 crores. In the same return, assessee claimed following incomes as not taxable in India in view