← 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

Radheshyam Shyamlal Gupta, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, WD-11(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6103/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavassessment Year : 2012-13 Radheshyam Shyamlal Gupta, Income Tax Officer, 5Th Floor, Ward-11(2)(2), Anuradha Satyamurty Residency Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Plot No.16, N.S. Road No.11, M.K.Road, Jvpd Scheme, Juhu, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400049. Pan : Aabpg4019L (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Jay Thakkar For Revenue : Shri Brajendra Kumar Date Of Hearing : 02-12-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 10-12-2025 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [„Ld.Cit(A)‟], Dated 04-07-2025, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13. 2. Briefly Stated, Facts Of The Case Are That Assessment In This Case Was Completed U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 („The Act‟), Wherein The Ao Has Determined The Long Term Capital Gain At Rs. 37,21,230/-, Being The 50% Share Of The Assessee In Respect Of Transfer Of 2 Property, Namely, Flat No. 2A & 2B, Anuradha Satyamurty Residency, Plot No.16, 11Th Road, Juhu, Vile Parle (West), Mumbai, Which The Assessee Has Sold Jointly With His Wife, Mrs. Shubhadra R. Gupta. The Assessee Thereafter Carried The Matter In Appeal Before The Ld.Cit(A), Who Has Since Sustained The Order Of The Ao & Dismissed The Appeal Filed By The Assessee On Account Of Delay. Against The Said Order, The Assessee Is In Appeal Before Us.

For Appellant: Shri Jay ThakkarFor Respondent: Shri Brajendra Kumar
Section 143(3)

this case was completed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 („the Act‟), wherein the AO has determined the Long Term Capital Gain at Rs. 37,21,230/-, being the 50% share of the assessee in respect of transfer of 2 property, namely, Flat

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Kct Papers Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, grounds raised by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 3380/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Dec 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmaacit, Circle 5 (1) Vs. M/S. Kct Papers Limited, New Delhi. Thapar House, 124, Janpath, New Delhi – 110 001. (Pan : Aacck4937D) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rohit Jain, Advocate Shri Deepesh Jain, Advocate Shri Tavish Verma, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Kailash Dan Ratnoo, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 10.09.2025 Date Of Order : 05.12.2025 O R D E R Per S.Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-Viii, New Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Cit (A)] Dated 21.03.2014For Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are, The Assessee Company Belongs To The Thapar Group Established By Late Lala Karam Chand Thapar. There Was A Family Settlement Between The Various Constituents Of The Karam Chand Thapar Family As A Result Of Which Revenue-Organization/Restructuring Of The Group Dated 27Th April, 2001. The Re April, 2001. The Re-Organization Of The Group Companies & Trusts Organization Of The Group Companies & Trusts Was Made Into Four Groups, As Under, Each Headed By The Sons Of Late Lala Was Made Into Four Groups, As Under, Each Headed By The Sons Of Late Lala Was Made Into Four Groups, As Under, Each Headed By The Sons Of Late Lala K.C. Thapar. The Family Tree Of Karam Chand T K.C. Thapar. The Family Tree Of Karam Chand Thapar Family Is Explained As Hapar Family Is Explained As Under In The Form Of A Diagrammatic Chart: Under In The Form Of A Diagrammatic Chart:

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kailash Dan Ratnoo, CIT DR
Section 391

Late Lala Karam Chand Thapar and his two sons, Sh. Gautam Thapar and Sh. Karan Thapar. 6. The facts pertaining to the Long term capital gains on sale of rights, title and interest in commercial site are that Modem Agencies Ltd. and KCT Bros Ltd. 4 (Both of which ultimately ... acquisition of such rights was Rs.1,83,39,832/-. Accordingly, assessee has offered Rs. 3,36,25,904/- being its 1/4th share of Long term capital gains. 7. The losses in respect of shares of Ballarpur Industries Ltd have resulted due to buyback of these shares made by the company