← 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

Bharat Kumar Bansal, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1005/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1000 To 1006/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2019-20) Shri Bharat Kumar Bansal Vs. Assistant Commissioner Hyderabad Of Income Tax Pan:Abfpb6416P Central Circle 2(1) Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri A Srinivas, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri S. Arun Kumar, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 17/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 07/01/2026 आदेश/Order Per Bench: These Seven Appeals Are Filed By Shri Bharat Kumar Bansal (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Hyderabad (“Ld. Cit(A)”) All Dated 07.03.2025 For The A.Ys. 2013- 14 To 2019-20. Since Common & Identical Issues Are Raised By The Assessee In All These Appeals, For The Sake Of Convenience, These Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order. 2. At The Outset, We Find There Is A Delay Of 06 Days In Filing Of All These Appeals Before This Tribunal. The Assessee Has Page 1 Of 9

For Appellant: Shri A Srinivas, CAFor Respondent: : Shri S. Arun Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 153C

assessment proceedings be held invalid for want of jurisdiction. 7. The Appellate Commissioner erred in confirming the addition of Rs.41,927/- as long term capital gains. 8. The Appellate Commissioner erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 1,88,241/-, claimed u/s.80C. 9. Any other grounds which the Assessee

Bharat Kumar Bansal, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1004/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1000 To 1006/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2019-20) Shri Bharat Kumar Bansal Vs. Assistant Commissioner Hyderabad Of Income Tax Pan:Abfpb6416P Central Circle 2(1) Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri A Srinivas, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri S. Arun Kumar, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 17/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 07/01/2026 आदेश/Order Per Bench: These Seven Appeals Are Filed By Shri Bharat Kumar Bansal (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Hyderabad (“Ld. Cit(A)”) All Dated 07.03.2025 For The A.Ys. 2013- 14 To 2019-20. Since Common & Identical Issues Are Raised By The Assessee In All These Appeals, For The Sake Of Convenience, These Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order. 2. At The Outset, We Find There Is A Delay Of 06 Days In Filing Of All These Appeals Before This Tribunal. The Assessee Has Page 1 Of 9

For Appellant: Shri A Srinivas, CAFor Respondent: : Shri S. Arun Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 153C

assessment proceedings be held invalid for want of jurisdiction. 7. The Appellate Commissioner erred in confirming the addition of Rs.41,927/- as long term capital gains. 8. The Appellate Commissioner erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 1,88,241/-, claimed u/s.80C. 9. Any other grounds which the Assessee

Bharat Kumar Bansal, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1003/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1000 To 1006/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2019-20) Shri Bharat Kumar Bansal Vs. Assistant Commissioner Hyderabad Of Income Tax Pan:Abfpb6416P Central Circle 2(1) Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri A Srinivas, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri S. Arun Kumar, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 17/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 07/01/2026 आदेश/Order Per Bench: These Seven Appeals Are Filed By Shri Bharat Kumar Bansal (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Hyderabad (“Ld. Cit(A)”) All Dated 07.03.2025 For The A.Ys. 2013- 14 To 2019-20. Since Common & Identical Issues Are Raised By The Assessee In All These Appeals, For The Sake Of Convenience, These Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order. 2. At The Outset, We Find There Is A Delay Of 06 Days In Filing Of All These Appeals Before This Tribunal. The Assessee Has Page 1 Of 9

For Appellant: Shri A Srinivas, CAFor Respondent: : Shri S. Arun Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 153C

assessment proceedings be held invalid for want of jurisdiction. 7. The Appellate Commissioner erred in confirming the addition of Rs.41,927/- as long term capital gains. 8. The Appellate Commissioner erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 1,88,241/-, claimed u/s.80C. 9. Any other grounds which the Assessee

Bharat Kumar Bansal, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1002/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1000 To 1006/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2019-20) Shri Bharat Kumar Bansal Vs. Assistant Commissioner Hyderabad Of Income Tax Pan:Abfpb6416P Central Circle 2(1) Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri A Srinivas, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri S. Arun Kumar, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 17/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 07/01/2026 आदेश/Order Per Bench: These Seven Appeals Are Filed By Shri Bharat Kumar Bansal (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Hyderabad (“Ld. Cit(A)”) All Dated 07.03.2025 For The A.Ys. 2013- 14 To 2019-20. Since Common & Identical Issues Are Raised By The Assessee In All These Appeals, For The Sake Of Convenience, These Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order. 2. At The Outset, We Find There Is A Delay Of 06 Days In Filing Of All These Appeals Before This Tribunal. The Assessee Has Page 1 Of 9

For Appellant: Shri A Srinivas, CAFor Respondent: : Shri S. Arun Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 153C

assessment proceedings be held invalid for want of jurisdiction. 7. The Appellate Commissioner erred in confirming the addition of Rs.41,927/- as long term capital gains. 8. The Appellate Commissioner erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 1,88,241/-, claimed u/s.80C. 9. Any other grounds which the Assessee

Bharat Kumar Bansal, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle -2(1), Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are

ITA 1001/HYD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.1000 To 1006/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2019-20) Shri Bharat Kumar Bansal Vs. Hyderabad Pan:Abfpb6416P (Appellant) Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Central Circle 2(1) Hyderabad (Respondent) निर्धारिती द्वारा /Assessee By: Shri A Srinivas, Ca राजस्व द्वारा / Revenue By:: | Shri S. Arun Kumar, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing: 17/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Pronouncement: | 07/01/2026 आदेश/Order Per Bench: These Seven Appeals Are Filed By Shri Bharat Kumar Bansal (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Hyderabad (“Ld. Cit(A)”) All Dated 07.03.2025 For The A.Ys. 2013- 14 To 2019-20. Since Common & Identical Issues Are Raised By The Assessee In All These Appeals, For The Sake Of Convenience, These Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order. 2. At The Outset, We Find There Is A Delay Of 06 Days In Filing Of All These Appeals Before This Tribunal. The Assessee Has Filed Separate Petitions For Condonation Of Delay Along With Copies Of The Affidavits Explaining The Reasons For Such Delay & Praying For Condonation Of The Same. After Considering The Reasons Stated By The Assessee & Upon Hearing The Submissions Of The Learned Departmental Representative (“Ld. Dr”), We Are Satisfied That The Delay Was Due To Reasonable Cause. Accordingly, The Delay Of 06 Days In Filing Of All These Appeals Are Condoned & The Appeals Are Admitted For Adjudication On Merits. 3. Identical Grounds Have Been Raised By The Assessee In

For Appellant: Shri A Srinivas, CA
Section 153C

assessment proceedings be held invalid for want of jurisdiction. 7. The Appellate Commissioner erred in confirming the addition of Rs.41,927/- as long term capital gains. 8. The Appellate Commissioner erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 1,88,241/-, claimed u/s.80C. 9. Any other grounds which the Assessee

Bharat Kumar Bansal, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1000/HYD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1000 To 1006/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2019-20) Shri Bharat Kumar Bansal Vs. Assistant Commissioner Hyderabad Of Income Tax Pan:Abfpb6416P Central Circle 2(1) Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri A Srinivas, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri S. Arun Kumar, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 17/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 07/01/2026 आदेश/Order Per Bench: These Seven Appeals Are Filed By Shri Bharat Kumar Bansal (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Hyderabad (“Ld. Cit(A)”) All Dated 07.03.2025 For The A.Ys. 2013- 14 To 2019-20. Since Common & Identical Issues Are Raised By The Assessee In All These Appeals, For The Sake Of Convenience, These Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order. 2. At The Outset, We Find There Is A Delay Of 06 Days In Filing Of All These Appeals Before This Tribunal. The Assessee Has Page 1 Of 9

For Appellant: Shri A Srinivas, CAFor Respondent: : Shri S. Arun Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 153C

assessment proceedings be held invalid for want of jurisdiction. 7. The Appellate Commissioner erred in confirming the addition of Rs.41,927/- as long term capital gains. 8. The Appellate Commissioner erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 1,88,241/-, claimed u/s.80C. 9. Any other grounds which the Assessee