← 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

Dy CIT CC 4(3), Mumbai vs. Shri. Rajesh Omprakash Agrawal, Thane

In the result ground number 1

ITA 1284/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Dcit(Cc)4(3) Rajesh Omprakash Agrawal R No. 1921, 19Th Floor, Air 16 Sai Shyam Chhaya Kopar India Bldg, Nariman Point, Road, Dombivali West, Vs. Thane-421202 Mumbai-400 021 (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit(Cc)4(3) Rajesh Omprakash Agrawal R No. 1921, 19Th Floor, Air 16 Sai Shyam Chhaya Kopar India Bldg, Nariman Point, Road, Dombivali West, Vs. Thane-421202 Mumbai-400 021 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Adypa5448F Assessee By : Shri. Ajay Daga, Ashok Bansal Revenue By : Ms Ridhi Mishra (Cit Dr) Date Of Hearing: 02.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 01.05.2023

For Appellant: Shri. Ajay Daga, Ashok BansalFor Respondent: Ms Ridhi Mishra (CIT DR)
Section 10Section 132Section 133ASection 142Section 143Section 153ASection 153C

confirming the addition of Rs.23,95,024/- in respect of gain on sale of shares of Luminaire Technologies Ltd. as non-genuine long term capital gain. 3.i. In doing so, the ld. CIT(A) did not appreciate that the overwhelming evidence placed in the course of assessment proceedings remained ... ld.CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of ₹ 1,43,701/- being alleged commission paid for availing alleged bogus long-term capital gain as unexplained expenditure. 5. In doing so, the ld.CIT(A) did not appreciate that not an iota of evidence was brought on record to support the addition

Vijay Spinning Mills Limited, Krishna District vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Vijayawada

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

ITA 181/VIZ/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam21 Apr 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.181/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2013-14) Vijay Spinning Mills Ltd., Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of 5-111-10, Vsm Quarters Income Tax Ganguru, Penamaluru Mandal Circle-1(1) Krishna Dist. Vijayawada [Pan : Aaacv7518B] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : None प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri O.N.Hari Prasada Rao, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 07.03.2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Dt. Of Pronouncement : 21.04.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Cit(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Vide Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/1044219637(1) Dated 28.07.2022 Arising Out Of The Orders Passed U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “Act”) Dated 26.03.2022 For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2013-14. 2

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri O.N.Hari Prasada Rao, DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 154Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 275(1)(a)

Without prejudice to the above grounds, the Ld.AO erred by not considering the Indexed cost of acquisition in computing the penalty on the long term capital gain of Rs.1,86,98,968/-. 10. Without prejudice to the above grounds, the Ld.AO erred in computing the penalty by considering ... rate of 32.45% on the long term capital gain instead of 20%. 11. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or withdraw all or any of the above Grounds of Appeal at or before the time of hearing of the appeal. 4. All the grounds of appeal are related