“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

Vijay Pal, Gurgaon vs. ITO, Gurgaon

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed as

ITA 3033/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Mar 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.3033/Del/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 बनाम Vs. Ito, Vijay Pal, S/O Late Sh. Manohar Lal, Ward-4(4), Village & P.O. Nakhrola, Gurgaon. Tehsil Manesar, Gurgaon. Pan No.Anvpp7279G अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.3031/Del/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 बनाम Vs. Ito, Raj Singh, S/O Late Sh. Manohar Lal, Ward-3(3), Village & P.O. Nakhrola, Gurgaon. Tehsil Manesar, Gurgaon. Pan No.Bjdps1075G अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.3032/Del/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 बनाम Vs. Ito Hariom, S/O Late Sh. Manohar Lal, Ward-2(1), Village & P.O. Nakhrola, Gurgaon. Tehsil Manesar, Gurgaon. Pan No.Afuph1298A अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234ASection 54B

charged during the year by assuming the cost of acquisition and indexation cost without any material before him; 6. Confirming the computation of Long Term Capital Gain and additions made to the returned income to the extent of Rs.1,92,38,329/-; 7. Not allowing claim for deduction ... prescribed authorities without application of mind and in contravention of the conditionalities as applicable thereto; 3. without prejudice in computing the long term capital gain as per circle rate prevailing during subject year instead of the actual sale consideration as received in terms of the I.T.A. Nos. 3033, 3031 & 3032/Del/2017

Hariom, Gurgaon vs. ITO, Gurgaon

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed as

ITA 3032/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Mar 2024AY 2010-11

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234ASection 54B

Raj Singh, Gurgaon vs. ITO, Gurgaon

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed as

ITA 3031/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Mar 2024AY 2010-11

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234ASection 54B

M/S.Enrica Enterprises Pvt Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-3(4), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1165/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G & Shri Manomohan Das

Section 271Section 271(1)(C)Section 271ASection 274

liability. Consequently, since one of the properties namely the property at Egattur Village was treated to be a capital asset, the long term capital gains were ITA Nos.1164 & 1165/Chny/2023 :: 23 :: computed and the assessee requested for deduction under Section 54F of the Act, as the sale consideration received was utilized ... liability. Consequently, since one of the properties namely the property at Egattur Village was treated to be a capital asset, the long term capital gains were computed and the assessee requested for deduction under Section 54F of the Act, as the sale consideration received was utilized for purchase

M/S Enrica Enterprises Pvt Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-3(4), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1164/CHNY/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G & Shri Manomohan Das

Section 271Section 271(1)(C)Section 271ASection 274

Gopal Lal Meena, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Circle-7, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 400/JPR/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Mar 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Vishnu Khandelwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. A. S, Nehra (Addl. CIT)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 50CSection 53(2)Section 53C

questionnaire was issued on 18.01.2016 which was served upon the assessee. 3.1. During the year under consideration, the assessee has declared income from Long Term Capital Gain of Rs. 1,30,54,692/- with respect to transfer of two capital assets and bank interest of Rs. 8,347/-. Both ... recorded in the sale deed, provisions of the section 50C of the Act are applicable in the case of the assessee and the long term capital gain was to be computed accordingly. The assessee contended that the circle rate is for vacant building whereas in the case of the assessee

M/S Tjr Properties Pvt. Ltd., Chandigarh vs. ACIT, CC-2, Chandigarh

ITA 5/CHANDI/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh05 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Goyal, CA &For Respondent: Smt. Kusum, CIT DR

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153A(1)(b)Section 153DSection 68

Rs.5,00,05,000/-by executing registered sale deed on 30.11.2011 and paying stamp duty. The same AO has assessed Long Term Capital Gain in the hands of M/s TJR from the said transaction. It is not the case of the AO that the said land was a Benami asset ... Rs.5,00,05,000/-by executing registered sale deed on 30.11.2011 and paying stamp duty. The same AO has assessed Long Term Capital Gain in the hands of M/s TJR from the said transaction. It is not the case of the AO that the said land was a Benami asset

Prahlad Dutt Lata, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-35(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 265/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Mar 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 265/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Prahlad Dutt Lata Income Tax Officer, Ward – Vs 35(1), Kolkata Urvashi Apartment 3, Hunger Ford Street Kolkata - 700017 [Pan : Aaxpl1559J] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Raja Sengupta, Addl. Cit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 22/02/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 05/03/2024 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) – 2, Kolkata (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 13/08/2018, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out That There Is A Delay Of 86 Days In Filing Of This Appeal. There Is A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Along With An Affidavit & The Reason For The Said Delay Is Mainly On Account Of Old Age Of The Assessee & The Delay On The Part Of The Person Who Received The Envelope Sent From The Office Of The Ld. Cit(A) Which Was Required To Be Handed Over To The Assessee. On Perusal Of The Affidavit, We Are Convinced That The Assessee Was Prevented For Reasonable Cause

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Raja Sengupta, Addl. CIT, Sr. D/R

Section 10(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 154Section 234BSection 250

with the appellant, and thus bad in law. 2. That the order passed by the Ld. CIT (Appeals) sustaining disallowance) of exemption of Long Term Capital Gains amounting to Rs.31,64,785/- and instead sustaining an addition of Rs. 33 Lakhs being the gross sale proceeds of shares ignoring ... Year 2014-15 furnished income tax return on 09/01/2015 declaring income of Rs.4,26,620/-. Based on the reason “Suspicious Transactions relating to Long term capital gain on shares”, case selected for scrutiny through CASS followed by issuance of notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act. Though

Shri Amritlal Futarmal Jain, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward-4(1)(3) (Erstwhile the ACIT, Circle-18(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3781/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Ms. Padmavathy, Am

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

dated 29.07.2013 declaring total income at Rs.2,22,84,596/- as income from salary, business income, short term capital gain (STCG for short), long term capital gain (LTCG for short) and income from other sources. The assessee's case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and notice

Sachin Dhamija, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward 36(3), New Delhi

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

ITA 2932/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahyasachin Dhamija, Vs. Ito, Ward 36 (3), C-361, Majlis Park, Gali No.9, New Delhi. Delhi – 110 033. (Pan : Ajipd2855R) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Saurabh Rohtagi, Ca Shri Ashok Sharma, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 28.02.2024 Date Of Order : 04.03.2024

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh Rohtagi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR

Section 250Section 50CSection 50C(2)

facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in upholding the addition of Rs.29,99,124/- being long term capital gain on sale of immovable property without appreciating the facts of the case. (ii) That the fair market value of the property sold being less

Superb Mind Holding Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle Int Tax 3(1)(2), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1568/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1568/Del/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19

Section 112Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

grossly erred both on facts and in law while making an addition of a sum of Rs.74,15,54,375/- on account of long term capital gain to be taxed under section 112 of the Act, which is wholly unwarranted and untenable in law. 2. That on the facts ... Management & Economic substance in Mauritius and thus, the benefit of DTAA being available to the Assessee Company, as such, the transaction of alleged long term capital gain, is not liable to tax in India and thus, the amount of tax deducted by the buyer needs to be refunded

Shivi Holdings Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-23(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2402/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganeshshivi Holdings Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Acit, G-16, Marina Acade, Circle-23(1), Connaught Circus, New New Delhi Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaaco2664H

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Asish Chandra Mohanty, CIT DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “G”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT

Rajendra Aggarwal, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-1(3), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 107/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri M. Balaganesh[Assessment Year: 2017-18]

Section 143(3)Section 54Section 54(2)Section 54F

other hand, the learned DR strongly relied upon the order of the learned CIT (A) and submitted that when the law provides that long term capital gain is to be deposited then source should be the same, that is, out of the same proceeds. He submitted that the assessee cannot ... assessee can invest from the same amount? What is required to be seen that the amount of capital gain should be invested in Long Term Capital Gain Scheme in the bank and not see the form of money which is to be deposited. Money doesn’t have a form

Sushila Bhardwaj, Jaipur vs. ITO 1(4), Jaipur

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

ITA 604/JPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Hearing.”

For Appellant: Sh. Mukesh Khandelwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Anoop Singh (Addl. CIT)

Section 143(3)Section 54

Sushila Bhardwaj vs. ITO ----------------- During assessment proceedings the ld. AO doubted on two claims in the above said working of Long Term Capital Gain i.e. on the cost of construction as claimed and deduction u/s 54 and he had made disallowances on both the issues. The issue of deduction ... brief fact of the case is that in the assessment proceeding the ld. AO doubted on two claims in the working of Long Term Capital Gain i.e. on the cost of construction as claimed and deduction u/s 54 and he had made disallowances on both the issues. The issue

Gopalkrishna Pandu Shetty, Mumbai, Maharashtra vs. ACIT Circle 32(1), Mumbai, Mahrashtra

ITA 2471/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Manish ShethFor Respondent: Shri Manish Ajudiya

Section 143(3)Section 54Section 54F

considering the claim of Rs.98,91,500/- of the assessee regarding deduction u/s 54 of The Income Tax Act, 1961 against long term capital gain on sale of residential properties. 2 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) ought ... Assessing Officer denied the claim of deduction under Section 54 of the Act and brought to tax INR 1,35,14,034/- as Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) in the hands of the Appellant vide Assessment Order, dated 19/12/2018, passed under Section 143(3) of the Act. Being aggrieved

Prakash Lal Potluri, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, (Int Taxn)-2, Hyd, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 567/HYD/2023[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad29 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2015-16 Prakash Lal Potluri, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad. (International Taxation)-2, Hyderabad. Pan : Gnkpp1085B. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Sri M. Vijay Kumar – Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 29.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.02.2024

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sri M. Vijay Kumar – CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144C(15)Section 147Section 148Section 48

natural justice. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad, erred in computing Long Term Capital Gain taking into account sale consideration of Rs.1,20,00,000/- which is not received by the assessee. 3. The Ld. Income Tax Officer ... Hyderabad, has erred in law in assessing the income under head Long Term Capital Gains stating that the assessee has not made any request regarding cancellation of sale deeds which is arbitrary and contrary to provisions of the law. 4. The Ld. Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad, assessed the income under

Sandhya Garg, Jabalpur vs. The ITO, W-2(4), Bhopal

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

ITA 178/IND/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore29 Feb 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanisandhya Garg Ito War,2(4) 30, Subhash Grih Nirman Bhopal Society, Priydarshini Colony Vs. Jabalpur (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Agtpg7994G Assessee By Shri Manoj Kumar Jain, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 29.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 29.02.2024

Section 54FSection 69

investments. 2. Under the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Id. CIT (A) NFAC erred in confirming addition of Rs.387607/- as long term capital gain ITANo.178/Ind/2022 Sandhya Garg ignoring the actual cost of acquisition and cost of improvement incurred by the assesse on impugned shop. 3. Considering ... assessee’s appeal is dismissed being not press. 4. Ground no.2 is regarding the addition made by the AO on account of long term capital gain arising from sale of shop. 5. Ld. AR of the assessee has submitted that the AO while making addition has not considered the cost

Simcorp Fund Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle- 4(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 3340/MUM/2023[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Feb 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Nayanjyoti Nath, DR

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 68

allegedly laundered their black money and became beneficiaries of the penny stock scam by availing accommodation entries in the form of bogus long term capital gain ITA No.3340/Mum/2023 A.Y. 2005-06 Simcorp Fund Ltd., from shares of M/s Suryadeep Salt Refinery& Chemical Works Ltd etc. According ... that assessee has not carried out any share transaction, wherein he has claimed to have earned any income from business income / capital gain (long term capital gain / short term capital gain / loss) in respect of shares of M/s Suryadeep Salt Refinery & Chemical Works Ltd and since we have to test

DCIT CC 7(2), Mumbai vs. Shri Nitesh Shahra, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 474/MUM/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Feb 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bledcit – Central Circle – 7(2) V. Shri Nitesh Shahra Room No. 655, Aayakar Bhavan Flat No. 102, 1St Floor 10 M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Sharda Building, A-Road Churchgate, Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Abjps2642E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Dr. P. Daniel Department Represented By : Shri S. Srinivasu

Section 127(2)Section 132(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 260

facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deciding the issue regarding treatment of Long-term Capital gain as business income of Rs. 17,47,41,080/- in favour of assessee and directed the AO to delete the addition ... ITAT was right in deleting the addition of Rs 18,53,69,866 from business income and treating the same as Long Term Capital Gain without appreciating the fact that the profit on sale of shares of RIL is out of manipulated transactions by the assessee and his associates

Dnyanoba Tippana Pandharpur, Pandharpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2, Pandharpur

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 124/PUN/2024[AY-2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Feb 2024

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S ShingteFor Respondent: Shri B.S. Rajpurohit

Section 143(3)Section 2(14)Section 250(6)

course of hearing, the learned counsel representing the assessee submitted that the Assessing Officer had made impugned addition of Rs.28,41,280/- as long term capital gains in the hands of the assessee by disregarding the fact that the said land was agricultural land and is not included in definition ... perused the material on record. The clinching fact is that the Assessing Officer had made the impugned addition of Rs.28,41,280/- as long term capital gains and the NFAC had confirmed the same without affording proper opportunity to the assessee, thereby, the NFAC not complied with the provisions