← 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

Shailesh K Patel-HUF, Ahmedabad vs. ITO, Ward-3(3)(5), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal preferred by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 288/AHD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 288/Ahd/2019 (िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) िनधा"रण वष" Shailesh K. Patel Huf The Income Tax Officer बनाम बनाम/ बनाम बनाम C/O. Ketan H. Shah, Ward – 3(3)(5), Vs. Advocate Ahmedabad 512, Time Square – I, Op. Ram Baug Bungalow, Thaltej Shilaj Road, Thaltej, Ahmedabad, Gujarat 380059 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aalhs9548E (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri Ketan Shah & Shri Aman Shah, अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : A.Rs. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr. Dr 04/06/2024 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 18/06/2024 O R D E R Per Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Ahmedabad, (In Short ‘The Cit(A)’) Dated 24.01.2019 For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Assessee Has Taken Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: A.RsFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 145Section 68

Effect Rs. 31,45,930/-)” 3. The grounds taken by the assessee pertain to disallowance of Rs.73,29,100/- on account of Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) claimed exempt under Section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) and which was added under

Rajesh Jagdish Trivedi, Chennai vs. ITO, Con Corporate Ward-6(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 669/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 669/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Rajesh Jagdish Trivedi, The Income Tax Officer, 312, Mint St, Parrys, Vs. Non-Corporate Ward – 6(1), Park Town Ho, Chennai. Chennai – 600 003. Pan: Aabpt 9341G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri K. Balasubramanian, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri N. Sanjay Gandhi, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11.06.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 14.06.2024

For Appellant: Shri K. Balasubramanian, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N. Sanjay Gandhi, JCIT
Section 10(38)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

dated 15.10.2019, the assessee withdrawn the claim of exemption made u/s.10(38) of the Act in the return of income against the long term capital gain arising out of sale of shares of Rekvina Laboratories. The assessee purchased 6000 shares of Rekvina Laboratories with a face value of Rs.10 ... while framing assessment and the information received form Investigation Wing, Vadodara does not name the assessee for earning of this penny stock shares long term capital gain but now, the assessee has withdrawn the claim and paid the taxes on this income before completion of assessment. The assessee has filed

Ashish Gupta, Ghaziabad vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 13/DEL/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Madhumita Royshri Ashish Gupta, Vs. Ito, Ward 1 (1), R-11/32, Raj Nagar, Ghaziabad. Ghaziabad – 201 002 (Uttar Pradesh). (Pan : Agipg3854E) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Subodh Gupta, Ca Shri Mukesh Agarwal, Ca Revenue By : Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 10.06.2024 Date Of Order : 13.06.2024 Order Per Shamim Yahya: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit (Appeals), Ghaziabad Dated 25.07.2019 For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Taken By The Assessee Read As Under :- “1. Because The Order Of Ld. Lower Authority Is Bad In Law As Well As Is Against The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. Because Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred In Sustaining The Addition Of Long Term Capital Gain Rs.13230858/- By Wrongly Observing That Land Situated At Village Masuri Pargana Dasna Is Within The Municipal Limits Of Ghaziabad Though The Agricultural Land Is Undisputedly Beyond

For Appellant: Shri Subodh Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. DR
Section 2(14)

against the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. Because learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in sustaining the addition of long term capital gain Rs.13230858/- by wrongly observing that land situated at village masuri pargana dasna is within the municipal limits of Ghaziabad though the agricultural land ... stamp duty of Rs.1,20,500/- was paid thereupon. The assessee 4 has ½ share in the said property Thus, the computation of Long Term Capital Gain on transfer of this property is made and long term capital gain is computed at Rs.1,32,30,858/-.” 4. Against this order, assessee

DCIT, Chennai vs. Tvs Investments Lrd., Chennai

In the result, the Revenue's appeal as well as the assessee's Cross Objection are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 262/CHNY/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Jun 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.262/Chny/2017 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Dcit M/S. Tvs Capital Funds (P) Limited (Formerly Known As Tvs Investments Limited) Corporate Circle-3(1) बनाम/ Jayalakshmi Estates, Chennai-600 034. Vs. No.29, (Old No.8), Haddows Road Chennai-600 006. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaact-1154-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Dr. D. Praveen (Jcit) -Ld. Dr " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, (Advocate)-Ld. Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 15-05-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 11-06-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Dr. D. Praveen (JCIT) -Ld. DRFor Respondent: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, (Advocate)-Ld. AR

material facts as noted in earlier order dated 22.11.2023 are not in dispute. During the year the assessee sold certain land and computed Long Term Capital Gains. It also transpired that the assessee sold 704349 number of equity shares of an entity by the name M/s. TVS Finance and Services ... total consideration of Rs.1.95 Lacs. The assessee computed Long term capital loss from such sale and set-off this loss against Long term capital gains derived from sale of land. Since the shares were sold at different rates on same date, Ld. AO doubted the loss claim of the assessee