← 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

Aniket Singal, New Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Chandigarh

In the result, all the above appeals are allowed

ITA 1146/CHANDI/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 939/Chd/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Shri Aniket Singal बनाम The DCIT 4, Amritashergil Marg, New Delhi- 110003 Central Circle-1 Chandigarh स्थायी लेखा सं./ PAN NO: CZCPS6126E अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 1145/Chd/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Smt. Aarti Singal बनाम The DCIT 53, Jor Bagh, New Delhi-110003 Central Circle-1 Chandigarh स

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar & Ms. Deepali Aggarwal, C.A’sFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 10(38)Section 132Section 132(4)Section 250(6)Section 68Section 69C

account of alleged commission expenses allegedly paid by the appellant for arranging alleged entries in respect of long- term capital gain by invoking the provisions of Section 69C ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. That the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was further not justified to uphold the action ... Briefly, the facts of the case are that the assessee in her Income Tax Return, has claimed exempt income in the form of Long Term Capital Gain ("LTCG") of Rs. 27,12,80,840/- from sale of shares of M/s Meenakshi Enterprises, M/s Shantanu Sheorey Aquakult Ltd and M/s Sunstar

Aarti Singal, New Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Chandigarh

In the result, all the above appeals are allowed

ITA 1145/CHANDI/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 939/Chd/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Shri Aniket Singal बनाम The DCIT Central Circle-1 Chandigarh 4, Amritashergil Marg, New Delhi- 110003 स्थायी लेखा सं./ PAN NO: CZCPS6126E अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 1145/Chd/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Smt. Aarti Singal बनाम The DCIT Central Circle-1 Chandigarh 53, Jor Bagh, New Delhi-110003 स

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar & Ms. Deepali Aggarwal, C.A’sFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 10(38)Section 132Section 132(4)Section 250(6)Section 68Section 69C

account of alleged commission expenses allegedly paid by the appellant for arranging alleged entries in respect of long- term capital gain by invoking the provisions of Section 69C ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. That the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was further not justified to uphold the action ... Briefly, the facts of the case are that the assessee in her Income Tax Return, has claimed exempt income in the form of Long Term Capital Gain ("LTCG") of Rs. 27,12,80,840/- from sale of shares of M/s Meenakshi Enterprises, M/s Shantanu Sheorey Aquakult Ltd and M/s Sunstar

Witmer Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Corporate Ward-3(3), Chennai

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

ITA 3840/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3840/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 Witmer Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 86, Vasanth Business Centre, Corporate Ward 3(3), Ttk Road, Alwarpet, Chennai 600 018. Chennai. [Pan: Aaacw6606P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Y. Sridhar, F.C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 18.02.2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13.03.2026 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 06.11.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Ld. Ar Shri Y. Sridhar, C.A. Requested To Take Up Ground No. 3 As Preliminary Issue For Adjudication As It Goes To The Root Of The Matter. Having No Objection From The Ld. Dr Ms. Gouthami

For Appellant: Shri Y. Sridhar, F.C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Addl. CIT
Section 143(2)Section 148Section 4

vide notice under section 148 of the Act on 26.03.2018. The Assessing Officer completed the reassessment by determining long term capital gain at ₹.2,05,60,486/- by raising demand of ₹.41,12,097/- as tax payable. Admittedly, assumption of jurisdiction by the Assessing Officer for non-issuance of notice

Sunil Suresh Rane, Dombivli vs. ITO Ward 42(3)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 7729/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Prabhash Shankarsunil Suresh Rane Vs. Ito Ward 42(3)(4) 301 Amrita, Apts, Rajaji Kautilya Bhawan C41- Path Lane 43, Avenue 3, Near No.4 Dombivli Videsh Bhavan, G Block Mumbai - 421201 Bkc, Gilban Area, Bkc, Bandra East Mumbai - 400051 Pan/Gir No. Abtpr2589P (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Aakash Parekh (Virtually Present) Revenue By Shri Brajendra Kumar (Sr. Dr) Date Of Hearing 12.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 10.03.2026 आदेश / Order Per Sandeep Gosain, Jm: The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Challenging The Impugned Order 29.09.2025 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’), By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For The Assessment Year 2016-17. The Following Grounds Are Reproduced Below: “1. Ground No. 1: Gross Violation Of Principles Of Natural Justice

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 149(1)(b)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 251

without prejudice to any other ground, Ld. AO has erred in making addition of Rs 5,36,290/- as Long Term Capital Gain which is incorrect both on facts and in law and hence, the said addition deserves to be deleted. 6.2. On the facts and in the circumstances ... Registration Charges amounting to Rs 3.52.500/- paid at the time of purchase of property as part of cost of acquisition while computing Long Term Capital Gain and therefore, the addition to the LTCG of Rs 5.36,290 made by the Ld. AD may please be deleted. 7. Ground