← 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

Suresh Maheshwari HUF, Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner on Income-Tax-25(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 3904/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayassessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Suresh Maheshwari Huf Dy. Commissioner Of 431, Akshay Girikunj, Income –Tax-25(1), Bldg.- 3, Parliament Road, Vs. Room No. 206, 2Nd Floor, Matru Mandir, Andheri (West) – 400058. Andheri Railway Station S.O. Tardeo Road, Pan: Aabhs3934A Mumbai- 400007. (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Rajesh Shah, C.A. Revenue By : Shri Prashant Mahajan, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 07 . 05 . 2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 29 . 05 . 2024 O R D E R Per : Ratnesh Nandan Sahay: 1. These Appeals Have Been Filed By The Appellant Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit (Appeals) Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income Tax Act [The „Act‟ In Short] Dated 21/09/2023 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Following Grounds Have Been Raised In Ita No. 3904/M/ 2023:-

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Shah, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Prashant Mahajan, Sr. D.R
Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 148Section 250Section 68Section 69

erred in confirming the addition of ₹ 73,94,850/- u/s 68 of the Act by treating long term capital gains as bogus. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in natural justice for confirming the addition as the Ld. AO has not provided any cogent materials or cross examination ... addition of Rs.73,94,850/- u/s. 68 of the Act on the ground that the claim of the assessee that it has earned Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) on account of sale of shares of Rander Corporation and Radford Global and exempted

Suresh Maheshwari HUF, Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner on Income-Tax-25(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 3903/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 May 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayassessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Suresh Maheshwari Huf Dy. Commissioner Of 431, Akshay Girikunj, Income –Tax-25(1), Bldg.- 3, Parliament Road, Vs. Room No. 206, 2Nd Floor, Matru Mandir, Andheri (West) – 400058. Andheri Railway Station S.O. Tardeo Road, Pan: Aabhs3934A Mumbai- 400007. (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Rajesh Shah, C.A. Revenue By : Shri Prashant Mahajan, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 07 . 05 . 2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 29 . 05 . 2024 O R D E R Per : Ratnesh Nandan Sahay: 1. These Appeals Have Been Filed By The Appellant Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit (Appeals) Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income Tax Act [The „Act‟ In Short] Dated 21/09/2023 For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Following Grounds Have Been Raised In Ita No. 3903 Of 2023 Are As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Shah, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Prashant Mahajan, Sr. D.R
Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 68Section 69Section 69C

erred in confirming the addition of ₹ 66,10,708/- u/s 68 of the Act by treating long term capital gains as bogus. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in natural justice for confirming the addition as the Ld. AO has not provided any cogent materials or cross examination ... Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny under CASS. It was noticed by the AO that as per working of long term capital gain attached with return of income, the assessee has earned Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) of Rs. 52,83,805/- on account of sale of the scrip

Vidyavathi Manthravadi, United Kingdom vs. Commissioner of Income Tax(It and Tp), Hyderabad

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

ITA 295/VIZ/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.292/Viz/2023 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year :2013-14) Sivakama Sundar Manthravadi, Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax United Kingdom. (It & Tp), Pan: Avspm 1372 N Hyderabad. (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.295/Viz/2023 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year : 2013-14) Vidyavathi Manthravadi, Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax United Kingdom. (It & Tp), Pan: Avspm 1370 Q Hyderabad. (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधर्थीकीओरसे/ Assessees By : Ms. P. Chandini, Ar प्रत्यधर्थीकीओरसे/ Revenue By : Dr. Satyasai Rath, Cit-Dr सुिवधईकीतधरीख/ Date Of Hearing : 27/03/2024 घोर्णधकीतधरीख/Date Of : 28/05/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R Per S. Balakrishnan:

For Respondent: Dr. Satyasai Rath, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 54Section 54E

period of three years since the assessee has claimed deduction U/s. 54 of the Act for the same flat with respect to long term capital gains for the conveyance of land to the builder by way of Joint Development Agreement. The Ld. DR also argued that the Flat came into ... transferee through a single conveyance deed against a lumpsum monetary consideration. In such cases, the question on the method of computing the long term capital gains arises (i.e.) whether the long term capital gain/short term capital gain could be computed for land and building separately? This question assumes paramount importance

Sivakama Sundar Manthravadi, United Kingdom vs. Commissioner of Income Tax(It and Tp), Hyderabad

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

ITA 292/VIZ/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.292/Viz/2023 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year :2013-14) Sivakama Sundar Manthravadi, Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax United Kingdom. (It & Tp), Pan: Avspm 1372 N Hyderabad. (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.295/Viz/2023 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year : 2013-14) Vidyavathi Manthravadi, Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax United Kingdom. (It & Tp), Pan: Avspm 1370 Q Hyderabad. (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधर्थीकीओरसे/ Assessees By : Ms. P. Chandini, Ar प्रत्यधर्थीकीओरसे/ Revenue By : Dr. Satyasai Rath, Cit-Dr सुिवधईकीतधरीख/ Date Of Hearing : 27/03/2024 घोर्णधकीतधरीख/Date Of : 28/05/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R Per S. Balakrishnan:

For Respondent: Dr. Satyasai Rath, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 54Section 54E

period of three years since the assessee has claimed deduction U/s. 54 of the Act for the same flat with respect to long term capital gains for the conveyance of land to the builder by way of Joint Development Agreement. The Ld. DR also argued that the Flat came into ... transferee through a single conveyance deed against a lumpsum monetary consideration. In such cases, the question on the method of computing the long term capital gains arises (i.e.) whether the long term capital gain/short term capital gain could be computed for land and building separately? This question assumes paramount importance

ACIT Cir 7(1), Mumbai vs. Novartis India ( Formelry Known As Hindustan Ciba Giegy Ltd), Mumbai

In the result, (i) the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose (ii) the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and (iii) the Cross Objections filed by the assessee ...

ITA 2188/MUM/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 May 2024AY 2003-04

Bench: Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Girish Agrawal & Co 76/Mum/2013 (A.Y 2003-04) Novartis India Limited Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income–Tax–14(1)(1) Inspire Bkc, 7Th Floor, Room No 432, Bandra Kurla Complex, Aaykar Bhawan, Bandra (E) M.K. Marg, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400020. Pan/Gir No. Aaach2914F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Deputy Commissioner Vs. Novartis India Limited Of Income–Tax–14(1)(1) Inspire Bkc, 7Th Floor, Room No 432, Bandra Kurla Complex, Aaykar Bhawan, Bandra (E) M.K. Marg, Mumbai-400051 Mumbai-400020 Pan/Gir No. Aaach2914F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 37(1)Section 41(3)Section 80H

respect to computation of income from capital gains. The AO found that the assessee in the revised return of income has computed the long term capital gains on sale of plot at Goregaon and working of the long term capital gain was also considered. Whereas the AO has dealt ... Less: Expenses incurred on sale of land 28,59,250 Less: Cost of acquisition 48945.90Sq.mtrX63X447/100= 1,37,83,655 Long term Capital Gain 17,99,02,095 19. The seventeenth disputed issue being the claim of amortization charges of leasehold land, the AO found that the assessee has made