← 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

Manish Mahipatrai Shah, Mumbai vs. CIT(Appeal), Mumbai

ITA 867/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.867/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Manish Mahipatrai Shah बिधम/ Cit(A)/Nfac 404, Commerce House, Mumbai. Vs. Nagindas Master Road Fort, Mumbai-400023. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Asfps9884D (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Vimal Punamiya Revenue By: Shri Biswanath Das (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 23/01/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 08/02/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 30.03.2022 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Upholding The Action Of The Ao Disallowing The Long Term Capital Gain (Ltcg) Claimed By The Assessee In Respect Of Sale Of Shares M/S. Sunrise Asian Limited (Hereafter “M/S. Sunrise”) Of Rs.11,89,44,328/- U/S 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”). & Thus Denying Deduction U/S 10(38) Of The Act As Well As Upholding Addition Of Rs.59,47,261/- As Commission For Arranging The Bogus Ltcg (5% Of Commission) U/S 69C Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunamiyaFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das (DR)
Section 10(38)Section 132(4)Section 147Section 68Section 69C

main grievance of the assessee is against the action of the Ld. CIT(A) upholding the action of the AO disallowing the Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) claimed by the assessee in respect of sale of shares M/s. Sunrise Asian Limited (hereafter “M/s. Sunrise”) of Rs.11 ... noted during the assessment proceeding that assessee has received Rs.12,39,44,328/- from sale of shares of M/s. Sunrise and claimed long term capital gain (LTCG) on sale of shares at Rs.11,89,44,328/- which assessee claimed as exempt u/s 10(38) of the Act. The AO called

Dhanania Rubber Limited, Kolkata vs. Pr.C.I.T.-3, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 167/KOL/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No.167/Kol/2020 Assessment Year : 2014-15 Dhanania Rubber Ltd.……..…..…......................…...……………....Appellant 10, Paymental Garden Lane, Kolkata – 700015. [Pan: Aaacd9341G] Vs. Pcit-3, Kolkata……..........…..........................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Anuj Mussadi, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 22, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 02, 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 20.03.2019 Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Pr. Cit’] Exercising His Revision Jurisdiction U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’).

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263

carry out fresh assessment proceedings after making necessary verification regarding correctness of the claim of the assessee in respect of computation of long term capital gain and deduction claimed by the assessee. It was also directed that the Assessing Officer will provide reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee ... made the addition on account of claim of deduction of Rs.1,20,28,262/- and further the Assessing Officer has also enhanced the long-term capital gains. It is when the fresh assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s 263 of the Act has been passed I.T.A. No.167/Kol/2020 Assessment Year