← 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

R. Yuvaraj, Chennai vs. ITO, Non Corporate Ward-22(5), Chennai

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

ITA 114/CHNY/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 114/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2011-12 Shri R. Yuvaraj, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, New No. 1/227, Old No. 1/206, Non Corporate Ward 22(5), Bajanai Koil Street, Medavakkam, Chennai. Chennai 600 100. [Pan:Ahbpy9547N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri R.S. Balaji, Advocate & Shri B. Sakthivel, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 28.11.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.11.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 10, Chennai Dated 05.03.2020 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Delayed By 639 Days In Filing The Appeal Before The Tribunal. The Assessee Has Filed Condonation Petition In The Form Of An Affidavit Explaining The Delay Was Due To 2

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Balaji, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

dated 05.12.2016 by assessing the total income of the assessee at ₹.1,22,82,577/- after making addition towards long term capital gain at ₹.70,22,500/- and income from other sources – interest income at ₹.60,077/- and unexplained cash deposits of ₹.52,00,000/-. On appeal

Income Tax Officer-26(2) (1), Mumbai vs. Narendra Bhabutmal Mehta, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1817/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1817/Mum/2022 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Ito-26(2)(1), Narendra Bhabutmal Mehta, Kautilya Bhavan, Room No. बिधम/ 402, Navare Appt. Swami 315, 3Rd Floor, Bandra Kurla Vs. Vallabhdas Sion West, Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 022 Mumbai-400 051 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Adxpm3744P (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Narendra Mehta, Ld. Ar प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Ms. Neeta Jeph, Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 01.09.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 30.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Impugned Order Dated 12.03.2022, Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Quantum Of Assessment Passed U/S 147/144 For Ay 2012-13. 2

For Appellant: Shri Narendra MehtaFor Respondent: Ms. Neeta Jeph, Ld. DR
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 68Section 69Section 69C

brokers, promoters/directors of the company, hawala operators etc., to provide accommodation entry to the beneficiaries either in the form of artificial gains (mainly long term capital gains which are exempt from taxation) or artificial losses which are set off against genuine profits thus reducing the taxable income of the beneficiaries ... Thus, the beneficiaries either bring their unaccounted money through artificial long term capital gains without paying any taxes or reduce their tax burden by taking artificial losses. The beneficiaries are required to pay certain commission / brokerage for availing such accommodation entries. I find from the order that

Ramesh J. Thakkar, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 26(3)(6), Mumbai

In the result Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 823/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 823/Mum/2022 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Income Tax Officer Ramesh J. Thakkar 26(3)(6) Mumbai 51, Moti Sagar,3Rd Road बिधम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Floor, Ganesh Gawde Road, Vs. Road, Church Gate, Mulund(W), Mumbai- Mumbai-400020 400080 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aabpt4367L (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri. Mehul Shah प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Ms. Neeta Jeph सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 01.09.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 30.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 17.03.2021, Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Quantum Of Assessment Passed U/S 147/143(3), For The Ay 2012-13. 2

For Appellant: Shri. Mehul ShahFor Respondent: Ms. Neeta Jeph
Section 132(4)Section 147Section 68

only argued the appeal on merits, that is, addition of Rs. 4,53,849/- on account of sale of shares claimed as long term capital gain which has been added by the Assessing Officer u/s. 68. 5. The facts in brief are that, the Assessee is an individual ... been regular investor in the stock market from last 50 years and has been regularly offering income from dividend, short term capital gain, long term capital gain from the shares and also income from 3 I.T.A. No. 823/Mum/2022 RAMESH J. THAKKAR the other sources. During the year, the Assessee