← 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

Deepak Srichand Bathija, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2104/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Br. Baskaran & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2104/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Deepak Srichand Bathija बिधम/ Nfac, Delhi 5-B, Elegant Apartment, 3 Room No. 356, Cr Vs. Sobhani Road, Colaba, Building, New Delhi. Mumbai-400005. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaapb6001A (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri H. S. Raheja Revenue By: Shri P. D. Chogule (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 26/05/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 26/07/2023 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 05.07.2022 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Brief Facts Are That The Assessee Had Filed Return Of Income Of Ay. 2014-15 On 30.07.2014 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.42,24,780/-. Thereafter, The Case Of The Assessee Was Taken Up For Scrutiny By Issuing Notice U/S 143(2) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) On 18.09.2015. The Ao During Assessment Proceedings Noted That Assessee Is Involved In The Business Of Finance & Brokerage & Derives Income From Business, Long Term Capital Gain (Ltcg) & Other Sources. The Ao Noted That Assessee Has Earned Ltcg Of Rs.32,09,789/- From Sale Of Shares & Payment Was Received From His Share Broker. & Out Of This Rs.19,23,000/- Was Earned As Ltcg From Sale Of Shares Between 12.11.2013 To 16.12.2013 Of M/S. Kailash Auto

For Appellant: Shri H. S. RahejaFor Respondent: Shri P. D. Chogule (Sr. AR)
Section 143(2)

during assessment proceedings noted that assessee is involved in the business of finance & brokerage and derives income from business, Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) & other sources. The AO noted that assessee has earned LTCG of Rs.32,09,789/- from sale of shares and payment was received from his share broker

Sanchit Vinod Jain, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1287/MUM/2023[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2023AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 1287/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Sanchit Vinod Jain बिधम/ National Faceless 601, Shrimad Darshan, Shri Assessment Centre, Delhi. Vs. Rajchandra Mandir Marg, Ghatkopar, Mumbai- 400077. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Ajlpj4491L (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Akshay Jain/Mahaveer Jain Revenue By: Shri Ram Krishna Kedia (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 05/07/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 24/07/2023 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 21.02.2023 For Ay. 2014-15 Confirming The Action Of The Ao Levying Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) Of Rs.11,088/-. 2. Brief Facts Regarding Penalty Levied Is That The Assesse Had Filed The Return Of Income Of Rs.11,64,790/-. The Assessment Was Completed U/S 143(3) Of The Act At An Income Of Rs.12,00,671/- After Making An Addition U/S 68 Of The Act To The Tune Of Rs.35,884/-. The Addition Of Rs.35,884/- Was Because During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, It Was Observed By Ao That Assessee Had Invested In Alleged Penny Stock Scrip Of M/S Sun Asian; & Has Derived Income By Way Of Sale Of The Such Scrip Of M/S Sun Asian Of 2800 Shares For A Total Consideration Of Rs.13,60,884/-.On Being Asked, The Assessee

For Appellant: Shri Akshay Jain/Mahaveer JainFor Respondent: Shri Ram Krishna Kedia (Sr. AR)
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

consideration of Rs.13,60,884/-.On being asked, the assessee 2 A.Y. 2014-15 Sanchit Vinod Jain submitted that even though he earned Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) of Rs.12,90,844/- from sale of scrips in question, he has offered more amount of Rs.13,25,000/- for taxation ... stock exchange], which establishes the direct relation with the transaction. Thus, according to AO, he has sufficient cogent tangible proof to show that long term capital gain booked by the assessee in her books were pre-arranged method to evade taxes and launder money. Hence, the difference, amount of Rs.35