← 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.Comm of Income Tax Central Circle 5(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Arch Pharmalabs Ltd, Mumbai

In the result of the Revenue Appeal is dismissed

ITA 1722/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.1722/Mum/2022 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Dy. Comm Of Income M/S. Arch Pharmalabs Tax Central Circle Ltd Mumbai 5(1) Mumbai 3Rdfloor, Titanic Bldg, बिधम/ Room No.1928, Chandivali Farm Road, Vs. 19Th Floor, Air India Bldg. Malegaon, Nariman Point, Mumbai Maharashtra 400072 Maharashtra,400021 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan No Aaccm0306Q (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ : Shri Madhur Agarwal Appellant By प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent : Shri. Manoj Sinha, Sr.Ar. By सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 20.10.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 23.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R

For Respondent: Shri. Manoj Sinha, Sr.AR
Section 133(6)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 68

penny stocks with an intention to record non-genuine LTCG/STCG M/s. Arch Pharmalab Ltd. has availed financial accommodation entries for obtaining bogus long term capital gains on various shares This entry of LTCG is taken by selling the shares 5 I.T.A. No. 1722/Mum/2022 M/s Arch pharmalabs Ltd. of Naresh Manakchand ... penny stocks with an intention to record non-genuine LTCG/STCG M/s. Arch Pharmalab Ltd. has availed financial accommodation entries for obtaining bogus long term capital gains on various shares. This entry of LTCG is taken by selling the shares of Naresh Manakchand Jain on the stock exchange and registering

Smt. Krishnaiah Ranganayaki, Cuddalore vs. ITO, Ward - 1, Cuddalore

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

ITA 618/CHNY/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 618/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2011-12 Smt. Krishnaiah Ranganayaki, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 17, Seetharam Nagar, Ward 1, Cuddalore 607 001. Cuddalore. [Pan:Aewpr9630P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri J. Prabhakar, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 09.11.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18.11.2022 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), Puducherry, Dated 20.02.2020 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Delayed By 37 Days In Filing The Appeal Due To Outbreak Of Covid-19 Pandemic & Accordingly, The Delay In Filing The Appeal Is Condoned & Admitted For Adjudication.

For Appellant: Shri J. Prabhakar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 54Section 54F

admitted for adjudication. 2 I.T.A. No.618/Chny/20 3. Facts are, in brief, that the assessee is an individual deriving income from house property, long term capital gain and other sources. On verification of details available on record, the Assessing Officer has noted that the assessee along with her son Sri Srikanth

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Non-Corporate Circle-7(1), Chennai vs. M/S. Rathna Cafe, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 14/CHNY/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.: 14/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013 - 14 The Dcit, M/S. Ratna Café, Non Corporate Circle 7(1), Vs. No.255, Triplicane High Road, Chennai. Triplicane, Chennai – 600 005. Pan: Aaafr 0842B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Addl.Cit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate & Shri N. Arjunraj, Ca सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 14.11.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 16.11.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh:

For Appellant: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, Addl.CITFor Respondent: Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate &
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

objections against reopening of assessment vide letter dated 01.11.2019 which was disposed off by the AO and reassessment was framed by assessing net long term capital gain at Rs.1,81,67,335/- by making addition of long term capital gain at Rs.73,32,665/-. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before ... recorded his finding in para 7.6 and quashed the assessment by observing as under:- “7.6 The A.O has examined the issue of long term capital gain during the original assessment proceedings by a specific query in the notice u/s.142(1) and thereafter the appellant filed the requisite details and documentary

Income Tax Officer Non-Corporate Ward-10(6), Chennai vs. Shri Arun Gupta, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 844/CHNY/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 844/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Income-Tax Officer, Shri. Arun Gupta, Non-Corporate Ward -10(6), V. No. 3B, Block, Lloyds Colony, Chennai – 34. Lloyds Road, Royapettah, Chennai – 600 014. [Pan: Agrpa-8340-C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri. Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. N.V. Balaji Advocate & Mrs. N.V. Lakshmi, Advocate सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 02.11.2022 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 16.11.2022

For Respondent: Shri. N.V. Balaji Advocate &
Section 139(1)Section 54Section 54E

bank account which includes his share of consideration and consideration of his siblings. The assessee has computed long term capital gains from sale of property and claimed exemption u/s. 54 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 :-3-: ITA. No:844 /Chny/2020 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) by paying ... authorities below. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the assessee has sold a residential house and computed long term capital gain, after claiming deduction u/s. 54 of the Act, and also, said amount was invested in acquiring new residential house. In fact, the AO has accepted