← 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

Veeresh Kumar Ramachandran, Kollam vs. The ACIT, Kollam

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

ITA 65/COCH/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Mar 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt. Padmavathy S.Assessment Year: 2016-17 Veeresh Kumar Ramachandran, House No.49/762, Dhanam, The Assistant Arayacham Veedu, Commissioner Of Income Vs. Kacheri, Tax, Kollam 691 013. Circle – 1, Pan No : Adypk7225J Kollam. Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri R Sreenivasan, A.R. Respondent By : Smt. J.M. Jumuna Devi, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 11.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.03.2023 O R D E R Per Beena Pillai: The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against Order Dated 28.5.2021 Passed By Nfac Delhi For Assessment Year 2016-17 On Following Grounds Of Appeal:- 1. This Appeal Has Been Preferred Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income-Tax(Appeals) Who Completed The Appeal Ex-Parte Assessing Long Term Capital Gain On Immovable Property In Which Appellant Had A Share. 2. Intact No Notice Was Served On The Appellant Thro Itba Module. A. The Assessing Officer Is Not Justified In Ignoring The. Comparable Case & Value Submitted By The Appellant In Total Disregard. Veeresh Kumar Ramachandran, Kollam

For Appellant: Shri R Sreenivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jumuna Devi, Sr. DR
Section 250

appeal:- 1. This appeal has been preferred against the order of Commissioner of income-tax(Appeals) who completed the appeal ex-parte assessing Long Term Capital Gain on immovable property in which appellant had a share. 2. Intact no notice was served on the appellant thro ITBA Module