← 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

Venkatesh Bomma, Hyderabad vs. ITO., (Int Taxn)-1, Hyderabad

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

ITA 62/HYD/2024[A Y 2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 May 2024

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.62/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15) Sri Venkatesh Bomma Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad (International Taxation)-1 Pan:Afhpb6561K Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P Rajeshwara Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Kumar Pranav, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 08/05/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 09/05/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri P Rajeshwara Rao, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Kumar Pranav, CIT(DR)
Section 144(1)Section 147Section 148Section 50C

Hyderabad relating to A.Y.2014-15. 2. The grounds raised by the assessee reads as under: “1. The Assessing Officer has erred in arriving long term capital gains by not considering the cost of construction as per work order to complete the Semi-Finished Residential Flat is erroneous as it is contrary ... r.w.s. 147 of the I.T. Act, dated 22.8.2022 and determined the total income at Rs.32,09,200 towards computation of Long-Term Capital Gain derived from transfer of property by taking into account full value of consideration as per provisions of section 50C of the Act without allowing deduction towards

Ramotar Choudhari HUF, Kolkata vs. PCIT 5 Kolkata, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1336/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No.1336/Kol/2023 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Ramotar Choudhari Huf.……..…………............…...……………....Appellant 7Th Floor, R.N 25 Fortuna Tower, 23A N.S. Road, Kolkata-1. [Pan: Aanhr9093K] Vs. Pcit-5, Kolkata………….…...............................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri S. K. Pransukha, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 06, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 09, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Revision Order Dated 18.10.2023 Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Pr. Cit’] Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). The Assessee In This Appeal Has Agitated Against The Action Of The Pr. Cit In Exercising His Revision Jurisdiction U/S 263 Of The Act & Thereby Directing The Assessing Officer To Frame The Assessment Afresh. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration Declaring Total Income Of Rs.2,55,970/- On 21.01.2014. Thereafter, An Information Was Received By The Assessing Officer From Investigation Wing That The Assessee Has

Section 10(38)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 263

Investigation Wing that the assessee has I.T.A. No.1336/Kol/2023 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Ramotar Choudhari HUF received accommodation entry in the form of bogus long term capital gain through share transaction of a penny stock company namely ‘Blue Print Securities Limited’ during the assessment year under consideration. The assessment ... assesse. 4.2 On examination of the assessment record, it is observed from the accounts filed that the assessee has claimed exempt Long Term Capital Gain amounting u/s 10(38) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to the tune of Rs. 11,87,718/- on account of sale of shares

Tirumala Irons (P) Ltd, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-4(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 993/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 993/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Tirumala Irons (P) Ltd. Income Tax Officer, Ward – 4(1), Subash Agarwal & Associates, Vs Kolkata /Assessing Officer, Nfac, Delhi Advocates Siddha Gibson 1, Gibson Lane Suite 213, 2Nd Floor Kolkata - 700069 [Pan : Aaact9984H] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09/04/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 08/05/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (Hereinafter The “Ld. First Appellate Authority”) Dt. 27/07/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. For That The Ld. Cit(A) Was Not Justified In Passing The Order Exparte Without Affording Reasonable Opportunity Of Hearing. 2. For That The Ld. Cit (A) Was Not Justified In Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 4,81,00,000/- Made By The A.O. On Account Of Share Capital Including Share Premium By Wrongly Applying The Decision Of Hon'Ble Supreme Court In The Case Of Cit Vs. T.V. Sundaram Iyenger & Sons Ltd. 222 Itr 344. 2

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, CIT, D/R
Section 131Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 250Section 68

I.T.A. No. 993/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Tirumala Irons (P) Ltd. year. Now, if we consider the revenue item, apart from dividend and long term capital gain and F&O profit, there is rental income and interest income of Rs.27,05,288/-. Certainly expenditure have been incurred for earning this

Harshad Mansukhlal Shah., Mumbai vs. ACIT, Cir-29, Kolkata.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 948/KOL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 May 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 948/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Harshad Mansukhlal Shah Acit, Circle-29, Kolkata 1208, C2 Wing Sheetal Nath Vs Gordia Nagar, Kurla Mumbai - 700077 [Pan : Alops0164Q] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Manish Tiwari, Fca Revenue By : Shri Swapan Kumar Bera, Jcit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17/04/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 08/05/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 10/12/2021, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Appeal Is Time Barred By 577 Days. On The Last Date Of Hearing I.E., 21/03/2024, The Bench After Considering The Condonation Application & Other Facts & Circumstances Of The Case Has Condoned The Delay In Filing Of The Instant Appeal Vide Its Order Dt. 21/03/2024, Which Forms Part Of The Record. Thus, We Proceed To Adjudicate The Appeal On Merits. 3. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Is Erred In Accepting The View Of The Ao That The Disclosed Short-Term Capital Gain Of Rs. 18,67,181/- As Business Income Of Rs. 18,67,181/-.

For Appellant: Shri Manish Tiwari, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Swapan Kumar Bera, JCIT, Sr. D/R
Section 112Section 143(3)Section 250

| आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण "यायपीठ, कोलकाता | IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE DR. MANISH BORAD, HON’BLE

Raghavan Srinivasan, Chennai vs. ITO, Corporate Ward-3(1), Chennai

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

ITA 265/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. No.265/Chny/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2022-23 Mr.Raghavan Srinivasan Vs. Ito Door No.21, Block “T” Corporate Ward-3(1), Xi Street, Anna Nagar Chennai Chennai-600040. [Pan: Abips5129D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Kathir, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P.Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing 02.05.2024 : घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08.05.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Against The Order Dated 05.01.2024 Passed By The Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Assessee Raised Give Grounds Of Appeal, Amongst Which The Only Issue Emanates For Our Consideration As To Whether The Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi Is Justified In Confirming The Order Of Ao Ex-Parte Of Assessee.

For Appellant: Shri Kathir, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 263

passed by the AO u/s.143(3) read with 263 of the Act before CIT(A) challenging the action of AO in recomputing the long term capital gains and by disallowing indexed cost of construction in the computation of long term capital gains without assigning any proper reasons and justifications