← 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

Smt. Kavita Sachdev, Indore vs. ITO-3(4), Indore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 255/IND/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore16 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shrib.M. Biyaniassessment Year : 2011-12 Smt. Kavita Sachdev, Income-Tax Officer, 112,Jairampur Colony, 3(4), बनाम/ Indore. Indore. Vs. (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan : Arcps6793D Assessee By Shri Milind Wadhwani, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 14.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 16.05.2024

Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

31st March, 2018. In reply, the assessee filed her return of income declaring total income of Rs. 12,00,400/- from long term capital gain interest and other sources. The AO also initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) and levied a penalty equivalent

Rashmi Ravikiran, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 195/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Years : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Ravindra Hegde, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S, JCIT (DR)
Section 54F

NFAC/ S/ 250/2023-24/1058525276(1) for the assessment year 2017-18. 2. In the present case, the assessee filed the return of income declaring long term capital gain amounting to Rs. 3,02,97,479 only. The assessee while calculating the long term capital gain has claimed the deduction

General Electric International Inc., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, International Taxation Circle 2(3)(2), Mumbai

ITA 3498/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh BafnaFor Respondent: Shri Veerbhandra Mahajan
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

basis is that by initially filing the return of income showing gain 9 made from the sale of the property at Bangalore as long term capital gain, assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income. Admittedly, no information given in the return was found to be incorrect or inaccurate ... statement made or any detail supplied was found to be factually incorrect. Submitting an incorrect claim in law of long term capital gain would not tantamount to furnishing inaccurate particulars. We should also note that the assessment order itself was passed after assessee furnished its revised computation of income

ITO Ward - 2(3), Ghaziabad vs. Shalini Gupta, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for

ITA 6815/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 May 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69

C.M.P. No. 3353 of 2019) where the shares of a 3 ITO Vs. Shalini Gupta company, in respect of which long term capital gain was claimed by the assessee as exempt, appeared in the data base of the Income Tax Department as penny stocks in tax evasion racket

Maunang Farms Pvt.Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1)(4), (Now ACIT., Central Circle-1(3), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 110/AHD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Ms. Nupur Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Yogesh Mishra, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 50C

properly considered various judicial pronouncements relied upon by the appellant company. II. Addition on account of Long Term Capital Gain Rs. 85,860/- 1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs.85,860/- out of total addition of Rs.3 ... account of Long Term Capital Gain u/s.50C as made by the Ld. AO. 2. The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not properly considering the submission made by the appellant company wherein, it was contended that the property sold by the appellant company was litigated property

Dev Darshan Designs Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 14(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 34/KOL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No.34/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dev Darshan Designs Pvt. Ltd.……….......................…...……………....Appellant P-40, 1St Floor, Kajinajrul Islam Avenue, Kolkata-700157. [Pan: Aadcd1890P] Vs. Ito, Ward-14(1), Kolkata….……............…..........................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Sunil Surana, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Department. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 09, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 15, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 07.11.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Agitated Against The Confirmation Of Addition Of Rs.2,67,60,000/- Made By The Assessing Officer On Protective Basis In Respect Of The Loan Amount Received By The Assessee From One Of Its Director & His Relatives. 3. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year Under Consideration Declaring A Total

Section 143(2)Section 250Section 68

Their PAN was given. The amount was received by account payee cheques. They have duly disclosed their income as well as long term capital gain in their return of income. The identity, creditworthiness and genuinity of the transactions is not disputed. The Ld. AO has made addition on protective basis ... only on the ground that the source of the loan was earning of long-term capital gain by the loan providing shareholders and their relatives. It is submitted that the law required that the asseesse to prove the identity of the loan creditors, genuinity of the transaction and Creditworthiness

Shri Nilesh Haresh Parwani, Mumbai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-22(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2244/MUM/2023[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 May 2024AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhshri Nilesh Haresh Vs. The Assistant Parwani, 501, Chumchum Commissioner Of Income Saraswati Road, Tax-22 (2) Santacruz West, Room No. 315, Piramal Mumbai – 400 064 Chamber, Lalbaug, Mumbai – 400 012 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Angpp1224L Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Sanjay Parikh Respondent By : Anil Sant Date Of Hearing 08.03.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 15.05.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A) Nfac For A.Y. 2014-15. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “A. Addition/Disallowance Of Short Term Capital Loss Rs.1,62,91,466/- 1. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Erred On Facts & In Law In Confirming The Addition/Disallowance Of Short Term Capital Loss Of Rs. 1,62,91,466/- As Made By The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, 22(2), Mumbai (Ao). 2. While Confirming The Addition/Disallowance Of The Said Loss, The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Holding That The Appellant Had Not Made Out A Case As To How Such Huge Ltcg/Stcl Has Accrued To The Appellant From Shares Of The Company Named Global Infratech Ltd.

For Appellant: Sanjay ParikhFor Respondent: Anil Sant
Section 143(2)Section 69C

basic aim of this dubious scheme was to route the unaccounted money of LTCG Beneficiaries into their account/books in the garb of Long Term Capital Gain. This entry of LTCG is taken by selling the shares on the stock exchange and registering the proceeds arising out of the sale ... stock exchange and as the sale of shares are done after a holding of one year they fall into the category of Long Term Capital Gain which is an exempt income as per the IT Act, 1961. 2.1.6 During the investigation statements of various operators, entry providers and the stock

DCIT, Central Circle-28, New Delhi vs. Psk Finance Solutions Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 663/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Sanket Milind Joshi, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Subhash Chandra, CIT-DR
Section 127Section 132(4)Section 132ASection 139Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 271FSection 69A

revised returns for A.Y.2013-14 and 2014-15 before his Jurisdictional A.O. i.e. ITO, Ward 1, Shahdol wherein the additional income on account of long term capital gains on sale of the above shares (including the undisclosed cash consideration of Rs.4,58,29,664/-) was offered to tax. The copies ... been completed on 24.12.2018. In the asst, orders passed in the case of Shri Jai Shiv Saxena, the A.O. has assessed the long term capital gains declared by Shri Jai Shiv Saxena (including the undisclosed cash consideration of Rs.4,58,29,664/-) as income of the Shri Saxena

Heidelberg Cement India Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Circle- 2, Gurgaon

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5823/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharmaheidelberg Cement India Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 9Th Floor, Tower-C, Infinity Circle-2, Towers, Dlf, Cybercity, Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aabcm2359J

For Appellant: Shri Harpreet Singh Ajmani, AdvFor Respondent: Mr. Waseem Arshad, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 71Section 74

allowing set off of brought forward 'Long Term Capital Loss' (LTCL) amounting to INR 77,98,71,598/- against the 'Long Term Capital Gains' (LTCG) amounting to INR 93,43,39,072/- of the subject year. 6. The Ld. AO/CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law by ignoring ... challenging the action of the ld CIT(A) in not allowing set off of brought forward long-term capital loss (LTCL) and long-term capital gains (LTCG). Interconnected issue involved therein is the order of priority of set off i.e. where LTCL for AY 2007-08 should

Sachin Prakash Valse, Latur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1 Latur, Latur

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 1448/PUN/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: -None-For Respondent: Shri Shashank Deogadkar
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69

accordingly proceeded ex-parte. 2. It emerges during the course of hearing that both the learned lower authorities have made the long term capital gains addition of Rs.51 lakhs in the course of assessment dated 27.12.2018 as upheld in NFAC’s lower appellate 2 ITA.No.1448/PUN./2023 discussion. Suffice ... when the assessee is alleged to have made payments of Rs.51 lakhs; as an investor; the learned Assessing Officer went on to add long term capital gains rather than invoking sec.69 of the Act. Be that as it may, there is no denial from the Revenue side that Assessing Officer

Bhavika Gunwant Patel, Nagpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(3), Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 366/NAG/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur14 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh LoyaFor Respondent: Shri Abhay R. Marathe
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69C

year 2012–13, it is seen that the assessee has claimed exempt income of ` 1,04,564, and the assessee had availed bogus long term capital gain and claimed the same as exempt for taxation purpose as per the provisions of section 10(38) of the Act. Subsequently, the case

Rohtang Commercial Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 331/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am& Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm]

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 69

been mentioned at Rs 79,03,676. The resultant loss of Rs 420,94,764 has been set off by the assessee against long term capital gains. This transaction appears to be suspicious in nature and probably this loss has been created to reduce the 9 Rohtang Commercial ... incidence of tax on long term capital gains discussed in para 3. This issue needs to be thoroughly examined to ascertain the genuineness of this loss” 6.4 We have also through the original order sheet entries, as were present in the assessment records and which had been submitted

Rita Sunil Shah, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer(It) 4(2)(1), Mumbai

The appeals are partly allowed

ITA 4070/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm The Income Tax Officer(It) Sunil Amritlal Shah 4(2)(1) C/O Vimal Punimiya & Room No. 1708, Co.,501, 17Th Floor, Vs. Niranjan, Air India Building, 99, Marine Drive, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400002 Mumbai 400021 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Hvnps5321F The Income Tax Officer(It) Rita Sunil Shah 4(2)(1) C/O Vimal Punimiya & Room No. 1708, Co.,501, 17Th Floor, Vs. Niranjan, Air India Building, 99, Marine Drive, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400002 Mumbai 400021 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Djgps8073B

For Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash–
Section 142Section 144Section 144CSection 147Section 148Section 254Section 271(1)(c)Section 54

Grounds in ITA No.4069/MUM/2023 04. ”1. The Ld. AO erred in disallowing the claim of the deduction u/s 54 of the long term capital gain of Rs.34,25,243/– earned on the sale of property dated ITA No.4069 & 4070/MUM/2023 Sunil Amritlal Shah & Rita Sunil Shah; A. Y.2011-12 ... officer was requested to consider the date of allotment as the date of acquisition of property and compute the capital gain as a long-term capital gain as the holding period of the property by the assessee in that case is more than 36 months. This was submitted in response

Sunil Amritlal Shah, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer(It) 4(2)(1), Mumbai

The appeals are partly allowed

ITA 4069/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm The Income Tax Officer(It) Sunil Amritlal Shah 4(2)(1) C/O Vimal Punimiya & Room No. 1708, Co.,501, 17Th Floor, Vs. Niranjan, Air India Building, 99, Marine Drive, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400002 Mumbai 400021 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Hvnps5321F The Income Tax Officer(It) Rita Sunil Shah 4(2)(1) C/O Vimal Punimiya & Room No. 1708, Co.,501, 17Th Floor, Vs. Niranjan, Air India Building, 99, Marine Drive, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400002 Mumbai 400021 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Djgps8073B

For Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash–
Section 142Section 144Section 144CSection 147Section 148Section 254Section 271(1)(c)Section 54

Grounds in ITA No.4069/MUM/2023 04. ”1. The Ld. AO erred in disallowing the claim of the deduction u/s 54 of the long term capital gain of Rs.34,25,243/– earned on the sale of property dated ITA No.4069 & 4070/MUM/2023 Sunil Amritlal Shah & Rita Sunil Shah; A. Y.2011-12 ... officer was requested to consider the date of allotment as the date of acquisition of property and compute the capital gain as a long-term capital gain as the holding period of the property by the assessee in that case is more than 36 months. This was submitted in response

Income-Tax Officer, Ahmedabad vs. Jhaveri Sandeep Bipinchandra (HUF), Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 805/AHD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra R. Kambleassessment Year : 2016-17 Jhaveri Sandeep Income Tax Officer, Vs. Bipinchandra (Huf), Ward-5(3)(1), 21, Crest Nutan Laxmi Soc., Ahmedabad 9Th Road, Jvpd Scheme, Juhu, Mumbai, Maharashtra 400049 Pan : Aachj 0855 Q अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" "" "" यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" Assessee By : Shri Deepak Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 15.02.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 10.05.2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Annapurna Guptapresent Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue Against Order Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Pune-12 [Hereinafter Referred To As "Cit(A)" For Short] Dated 24.08.2023 Passed Under Section 250(6) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act" For Short], For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17. 2. Ground Of Appeal No.1 Raised By The Department Reads As Under:- “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Treating The Income Of Rs. 54,49,539/- As Short Term Capital Gain Instead Of Business Income.” 3. The Issue Raised In The Above Ground Relates To The Short Term Capital Gain Returned By The Assessee, On The Transactions Of Dealing In Shares, As Ito Vs Jhaveri Sandeep Bipinchandra Huf Ay : 2016-17 2

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr DR
Section 250(6)

income shown as short term share profit was treated as business income, while that shown as long term share profit was offered as long term capital gain by the assessee, claimed as exempt and accepted by the Assessing Officer. The ld. CIT(A) held that nomenclature would not determine

Asahi Songwon Colors Limited, Ahmedabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Aaykar Bhavan, Ahmedabad

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 710/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra R. Kambleassessment Year : 2017-18 Asahi Songwon Colors Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. 20 Block B, Times Corporate Income Tax, Park, Opp Copper Stone, Central Circle 2 (3), Thaltej, Shilaj Road, Aaykar Bhavan, Ahmedabad -380059 Ahmedabad Pan : Aaaca 9713 D अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sunil Talati, Ar Revenue By : Ms. Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13.02.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 10.05.2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Annapurna Guptapresent Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against Order Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-12, Ahmedabad [Hereinafter Referred To As "Cit(A)" For Short] Dated 18.08.2023 Passed Under Section 250(6) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act" For Short], For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. Ground Nos. 1 & 2, It Was Stated, Relate To The Same Issue Of Disallowance Made Of Expenses Incurred In Relation To Earning Exempt Income, In Terms Of Provisions Of Section 14A Of The Act. The Disallowance So Made By The Assessing Officer & Confirmed By The Ld. Cit(A) Amounts To Rs.23,00,575/-. Ground Nos. 1 & 2 Raised By The Assessee Read As Under:- Asahi Songwon Colors Ltd Vs. Dcit Ay : 2017-18 2

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Talati, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr DR
Section 10(34)Section 10(38)Section 14Section 14ASection 250(6)

year i.e. on 31.03.2017. Further, the assessee had earned exempt income in the form of dividend u/s 10(34) of the Act and Long Term Capital Gain u/s 10(38) of the Act as under:- (i) Dividend from companies - Rs.13,97,382/- u/s 10(34) of the Act; (ii) Long

Krishan Kumar Tarachand, Pune vs. ITO (It) Ward -2, Pune

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

ITA 513/PUN/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 May 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.513/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Krishan Kumar Tarachand, Vs. Ito (It), Ward-2, Pune. Flat No.4, Anupam Apartments, Nda Pashan Road, Bavdhan Khurd, Pune- 411021 Pan : Abupd4503C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Manoj Tripathi Date Of Hearing : 29.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.05.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 09.07.2023 Passed By Ld Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. (A) The Ld. National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Erred In Law & In Facts In Dismissing The Appeal Filed Against Penalty Order U/S. 271(1)(C) Of Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 25.06.2018 Merely On The Premise That The Appeal Was Filed Belatedly & Without Providing Reasonable Opportunity Of Being Heard. (B) The Ld. Nfac Erred In Law In Dismissing The Appeal Filed Against Penalty Order U/S. 271(1)(C) Of Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 25.06.2018 Levying A Penalty Of Rs.6,09,760/- Without

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Tripathi
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 275

Assessing Officer u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the IT Act on 22.12.2017 determining total income of Rs.31,20,000/- under the head “Long Term Capital Gains”, on the 3 ground that the appellant assessee had sold an immovable property for a sale consideration of Rs.31,20,000/- which resulted ... taxable income under the head “Long Term Capital Gains”. The Assessing Officer also initiated penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income. Subsequently vide order dated 25-06-2018 penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act of Rs.6,09,760/- was imposed

Indira Pradeep Vardavat, Thane vs. ACIT, Circle 1, Thane

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

ITA 432/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 48Section 54

aside. 4. The Hon. CIT(A) erred in upholding addition of Rs.1,31,47,383/- made by ld AO as share of long term capital gain arising on retirement of the appellant from the partnership firm, M/s. Parmar & Associates, holding the share of revaluation gain in respect of shop ... partnership firm, M/s. Parmar & Associates at Thane, without granting appropriate deduction for indexed cost of acquisition of such premises and therefore the long term capital gains determined in the hands of the appellant is factually erroneous. 6. The Hon. CIT(A) erred in upholding the computation of capital gains made

Urmila Uttam Jhavar, Mumbai vs. Faceless, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 208/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal: A.Y : 2018-19 Urmila Uttam Jhavar Vs Principal Commissioner Of 2 Homestead, . Income Tax Officer, Mumbai. 16, Dattatraya Road, Santa Cruz, (Respondent) Mumbai 400 054. Pan : Aaapj8879N (Appellant)

For Appellant: Shri Prakash JotwaniFor Respondent: Ms. Rajeshwari Menon
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54F

passed by Ld PCIT. 2. The assessee herein is an individual and has declared income from salary, house property, income from partnership firm, long term capital gains on sale of property. The assessment was completed by the AO u/s 143(3) of the Act on 30-04-2021. Upon examination

Nawal Basudeo Agarwal, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi

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

ITA 4419/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Ms Padmavathy S

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 68

thereby erred in confirming the addition to the total income of the assessee as against shown by the assessee as Long term Capital Gains. 3.The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the charging of interest under section 234A, 234B and 234C of the Income Tax Act 1961. 4.The ... called for the information. The AO on perusal of the details, found that the assessee has earned long term capital gains on sale of shares of M/s Global Infratech Ltd (formerly known as M/s Asianlak Capital & Finance Ltd.) and the assessee was asked to produce the details of purchase