← 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

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata vs. Rahul Saraf, Kolkata, West Bengal

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

ITA 1238/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Acit, Circle-40 Rahul Saraf (Huf) Income Tax Office, 3, 4/1, Red Cross Place, Kolkata- Government Place (West), Vs. 700001, West Bengal Kolkata-700001, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadhr2300F Dcit, 5Th Floor, Room No.516, Rahul Saraf Aaykar Bhavan Poorva, 33, Hungerford Street, Kolkata- Vs. 700017, West Bengal 110, Shantipally, Kolkata-700107 West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Akops6728D Assessee By : Shri Somitra Choudhury & Shri Pranabash Sarkar, Ars Revenue By : Shri Raja Sengupta, Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.12.2024

For Appellant: Shri Somitra Choudhury &For Respondent: Shri Raja Sengupta, DR
Section 132(1)Section 14ASection 24ASection 54Section 8D

assessee made during the assessment proceedings noted that the claim of the assessee of exemption u/s 54F of the Act in respect of long term capital gain at ₹5,46,83,932/- is not allowable and accordingly, rejected the claim either ... added the entire amount to the income of the assessee besides making addition of sum of ₹1,28,17,282/- in respect of long term capital gain on sale of part of land at 52/5A in the assessment framed under section

Neeraj Bhardwaj, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 39(1), New Delhi

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 1086/DEL/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. M. Balaganeshita No. 1086/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Neeraj Bhardwaj, Vs Income Tax Officer, H.No. 314, Main Chowk, Near Pnb, Ward-39(1), Burari, Delhi-110084 New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Apdpb0280P Assessee By : Sh. Tushal Gupta, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Akhilesh Kumar Yadav, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 05.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 13.12.2024 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2014-15, Arises Against The Cit(A)-13, Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Apl/S/250/2019-20/1024600279(1) Dated 03.02.2020 In Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: Sh. Tushal Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Akhilesh Kumar Yadav, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 149Section 150(1)Section 150(2)Section 250Section 251(1)Section 54

Rs.1,54,60,000/-. The admitted indexed cost of acquisition thereof was Rs.77,31,397/- which resulted in net long term capital gains of Rs.77,68,603/-. We further note that the assessee thereafter purchased/re-invested the said capital gains on 05.02.2013 in purchasing 1120 sq. yrd. for Rs.1 ... learned CIT(A) has issued the following directions to the Assessing Officer: “4.5 As far as violation of section 54 is concerned, the long term capital gains has to be treated as income during the year in which the property was sold i.e. AY 2013-14 and taxed as long