← 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

Sabesan Parameswaran, Chennai vs. ACIT Non Corporate Circle 2, Chennai

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

ITA 2060/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 2060/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015 - 16 Dr. Sabesan Parameswaran, The Acit, New No.6, Old No.30, Vs. Non-Corporate Circle-2, Second Street, East Chennai Abhiramapuram, Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004. Pan: Amipp 9152G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri P.R. Venkatachalam, C.A ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 31.10.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 16.11.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh:

For Appellant: Shri P.R. Venkatachalam, C.A ""For Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 143(3)

treating the amount of Rs.6,86,06,500/- received by Shri S. Ramaswamy as income of the assessee under the head ‘long term capital gain’. 3. Brief facts are that the AO during the course of assessment proceedings noticed from the computation of income filed by assessee that the assessee ... disclosed long term capital gain of Rs.29,81,660/- on account of sale of land admeasuring 6462 sq.ft., comprised in survey No.2/5, block No.22, LB Road, Chennai. The AO noted that the assessee as per sale deed received sale consideration of Rs.7,43,50,000/- and the assessee submitted

Sekar Devi, Madurai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward-2(1), Madurai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1592/CHNY/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Nov 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 1591 & 1592/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2008-09 & 2009-10 Smt. Sekar Devi, The Income Tax Officer, 16-C/2, Nadar Vidyasala Street, Vs. Non-Corporate Ward 2(1), South Veli Street, Madurai. Madurai – 1. Pan: Aempd 9173M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P.M. Senthil Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 16.11.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 16.11.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh: These Appeals By The Assessee Are Arising Out Of Different Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Madurai In Ita No.0104/2016-17 & 0076/2015-16 Both Dated 05.04.2019. The Assessments Were Framed By The Ito, Non-Corporate Ward 2(1), Madurai For The Assessment Years 2008-09 & 2009-10 U/S.144 R.W.S 147 & U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’) Vide Orders Dated 13.06.2016 & 30.03.2015. 2. The Common Issue In Both The Appeals Of The Assessee Is That The Lower Authorities I.E., The Cit(A) As Well As The Ao Passed Order Without Assigning Any Proper Reasons & Justification & The Ao Framed Assessment Ex-Parte U/S.144 Of The Act In Assessment Year 2008-09 & The Cit(A) In Both The Years Has Dismissed The Appeals Of Assessee Without Deliberating On The Merits Of The Case.

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.M. Senthil Kumar, JCIT
Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 68

took us through the findings recorded by the CIT(A) in assessment year 2009-10 as regards to the adjudication of issue of long term capital gain and finding of CIT(A) was perused, which is recorded in para 11 and the same reads as under:- 11. Under the Income ... Assessing Officer has observed that the argument of the assessee was without basis and hence cannot be accepted. The computation of long term capital gain as made by the Assessing Officer must therefore to sustain and the arguments advanced by the authorised representative and has to be rejected

Sekar Devi, Madurai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward-2(1), Madurai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1591/CHNY/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Nov 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 1591 & 1592/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2008-09 & 2009-10 Smt. Sekar Devi, The Income Tax Officer, 16-C/2, Nadar Vidyasala Street, Vs. Non-Corporate Ward 2(1), South Veli Street, Madurai. Madurai – 1. Pan: Aempd 9173M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P.M. Senthil Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 16.11.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 16.11.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh: These Appeals By The Assessee Are Arising Out Of Different Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Madurai In Ita No.0104/2016-17 & 0076/2015-16 Both Dated 05.04.2019. The Assessments Were Framed By The Ito, Non-Corporate Ward 2(1), Madurai For The Assessment Years 2008-09 & 2009-10 U/S.144 R.W.S 147 & U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’) Vide Orders Dated 13.06.2016 & 30.03.2015. 2. The Common Issue In Both The Appeals Of The Assessee Is That The Lower Authorities I.E., The Cit(A) As Well As The Ao Passed Order Without Assigning Any Proper Reasons & Justification & The Ao Framed Assessment Ex-Parte U/S.144 Of The Act In Assessment Year 2008-09 & The Cit(A) In Both The Years Has Dismissed The Appeals Of Assessee Without Deliberating On The Merits Of The Case.

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.M. Senthil Kumar, JCIT
Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 68

took us through the findings recorded by the CIT(A) in assessment year 2009-10 as regards to the adjudication of issue of long term capital gain and finding of CIT(A) was perused, which is recorded in para 11 and the same reads as under:- 11. Under the Income ... Assessing Officer has observed that the argument of the assessee was without basis and hence cannot be accepted. The computation of long term capital gain as made by the Assessing Officer must therefore to sustain and the arguments advanced by the authorised representative and has to be rejected

A.Ramesh, Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 15, Chennai

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

ITA 1838/CHNY/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Nov 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1838/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2010-11 Shri A. Ramesh, The Deputy Commissioner Of 21, North Crescent Road, Vs. Income Tax, T. Nagar, Chennai -17. Corporate Circle 15, Chennai. [Pan:Aeppr4222Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri C. Ramesh Kumar, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 18.10.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 04.11.2022 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) 15, Chennai, Dated 30.01.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2010-11. The Only Effective Ground Raised In This Appeal Of The Assessee Relates To Whether The Agricultural Land Sold By The Assessee Is Liable For Capital Gain Tax Or Exempt From Taxation.

For Appellant: Shri C. Ramesh Kumar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 2(14)

assessee does not fall under the exception provided under section 2(14) of the Act. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer calculated the long term capital gains at ₹.1,26,00,000/- and brought to tax. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A), more or less expressed the same view and confirmed

ITO -19(2) (4), Mumbai vs. Shri Prakash Chandra Surajmal Gandhi, Mumbai

ITA 2272/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 2272/मुं/2021 ("न.व 2011-12) Income Tax Officer – 19(2)(4), Room No.217, 2Nd Floor, Matru Mandir, Grant Road, Mumbai 400 007 ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Shri Prakash Chandra Surajmal Gandhi, 41, Ashutosh Co-Op Society, 38A, Nepeansea Road, Mumbai 400 006 Pan: Aacpg-9520-B ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Ms. Beena Santosh ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri A.K. Vaidyalingan सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 03/08/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 31/10/2022 आदेश/ Order This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals) National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [In Short 'The Cit(A)’] Dated 05/10/2021 For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Revenue Is In Appeal Against The Order Of Cit(A) In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.27,31,200/- On Account Of Sale Consideration Received On Sale Of Shares Of Action Financial Services Limited. The Assessing Officer Made Addition Of The Entire Sale Consideration Of Shares As Unexplained Income Under Section 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [ In Short ‘The Act’].

For Appellant: Ms. Beena SantoshFor Respondent: Shri A.K. Vaidyalingan
Section 143(3)Section 68

offered to tax. The major chunk of shares were sold by the assessee in financial year 2008-09, wherein the assessee had made long term capital gain. The ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee pointed that the Revenue has not raised any doubt on the purchase of shares