← 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

Moon Star Beach Resorts Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 4(1), Chennai

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

ITA 893/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Oct 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 893/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2014-15 M/S. Moon Star Beach Resorts (P) Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of Flat No. 6, 14, Whannels Road, Vs. Income Tax, Egmore, Chennai 600 008. Corporate Circle 4(1) [Pan:Aaecm2763M] Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Quadir Hoseyn, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 28.09.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 14.10.2022 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) 8, Chennai, Dated 30.01.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Facts Are, In Brief, That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2014-15 On 30.10.2015 Admitting Total Income Of ₹.75,83,510/-. The Assessee Has Offered Long Term Capital Gains Of ₹.85,27,750/- Arising Out Sale Of 5 Grounds Of Land. The Sale Consideration

For Appellant: Shri N. Quadir Hoseyn, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 50C

return of income for the assessment year 2014-15 on 30.10.2015 admitting total income of ₹.75,83,510/-. The assessee has offered long term capital gains of ₹.85,27,750/- arising out sale of 5 grounds of land. The sale consideration 2 I.T.A. No.893/Chny/19 received by the assessee

Bachubhai Dharamshi Arethiya, Navi Mumbai vs. Asst CIT CC 3, Thane

In the result with the above discussion Ground No-4 raised by the assessee is dismissed, as we don’t see any reason to interfere in the findings of Ld

ITA 890/MUM/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyalbachubhai Dharamshi Arethiya, 230, 2Nd Floor, Big Splash, Plot No. 78-79, Sec.Tor-17, Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400705. Pan: Adepp8750F ...... Appellant Vs. Acit, Cc- 3, Room No. 12, A-Wing, Ashar It Park, 6Th Floor, Road No. 16Z, Wagle Industrial Estate, Thane (West)-400604. ..... Respondent Appellant By : Ms. Ritika Agarwal, Adv. Respondent By : Sh. Chetan M. Kacha, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 18/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 14/10/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal), Pune-11 [Hereinafter Referred To As [‘Cit(A)’] Dated 17.01.2020 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961

For Appellant: Ms. Ritika Agarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Chetan M. Kacha, Sr.DR
Section 10Section 10(38)Section 132Section 14ASection 250Section 28

reckoning the indexation year wise as per payment. 6. BECAUSE the CIT(A) while confirming the AO's action of re-computation of long-term capital gain on sale of shops failed to consider that the AO has erred in not considering an amount of Rs.160,061/- being incurred ... interest-bearing fund it is assumed that interest free funds are utilised for giving interest free advances/investments to earn exempted income. To earn long term capital gain amounting to Rs 3,91,16,125/- assessee invested Rs 52,50,000/-. We observed with the personal balance-sheet of the assessee

Income Tax Officer 33(1)(4), Mumbai vs. Dheeraj Babulal Shah, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 4272/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 4272/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2014-15) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 4092/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2015-16) बिधम/ Ito-33(1)(4) Dheeraj Babulal Shah Room No. 708, 7Th Floor, 23/A-12, Akash Chsl, Vs. Bldg. No. C-12, Jalawal Nagar, Ashok Nagar, Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Kandivali (E), Mumbai- Bandra Kurla Complex, 400101. Bandra (E), Mumbai- 400051. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Arwps1458D (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Smt. Mahita Nair (Sr. Ar) Assessee By: Shri Rajkumar Singh सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 19/07/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 14/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Appeals Are Preferred By The Revenue Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-45, Mumbai, Dated 29.03.2018 For A.Y.2014-15 & Dated 12.03.2019 For Ay. 2015-16 Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri Rajkumar SinghFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair (Sr. AR)
Section 10(38)Section 131Section 133ASection 68

A.Y.2014-15 & dated 12.03.2019 for AY. 2015-16 respectively. 2. The common issue involved in both the appeals relates to the taxability of Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) derived from sale of shares of M/s. Essar (India) Ltd. With the consent of both parties, we take ... Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter “the Act”) of Rs.8,88,19,767/-, which the assessee claimed as exempt long term capital gain u/s 10(38) of the Act, derived from sale of listed shares of M/s. Essar (India) Ltd. 4. Brief facts of the case are that, the assessee

Dharmista Mehta, Mumbai vs. ITO 34(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1885/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyaldr. Dharmista Mehta 22/5, Walchand Terraces, Opp. A.C. Market, Tardeo, Mumbai - 400043. Pan: Aafpm5272R ...... Appellant Vs. Ito-34(1) (3), Income Tax Office Building, Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Bkc, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051. ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. Satish Mody Respondent By : Smt. Mahita Nair, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 18/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 12/10/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-46, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As [‘Cit(A)’] Dated 31.01.2017 Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As [‘The Act’] For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Sh. Satish ModyFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 54

prejudice to each other. 1. In not allowing the benefit of Section 54 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) while computing long term capital gain on sale of property merely on the ground that the appellant had failed to deposit the amount in the Capital Gains Account Scheme ... Based on these observations, AO issued a show-cause that why Rs. 1, 19, 45,236/- should not be taxed under the head “Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG)”. 4. During the course of hearing, assessee relied upon the judgment in the case of CIT Vs. Miss. Jagriti Aggarwal

Raj Real Estate & Finvest Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal CIT-5, Mumbai

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

ITA 538/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 538/Mum/2022 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Pcit Mumbai-5, Raj Real Estate & Finvest Pvt. R. No. 515, 5Th Floor, Ltd. बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. 1807, Panchartna Building, Vs. Road, Mumbai-400 020 Mama Parmanand Marg Opera House, Mumbai-400 004 स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aabcr3037J (अपीलधथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलधथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Suchek Anchaliya T Tushar Nagori, Ld. Ars प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Mahita Nayar, Ld. Dr सुनवधईकीतधरीख/ : 07.07.2022 Date Of Hearing घोर्णधकीतधरीख / : 03.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri Suchek Anchaliya TFor Respondent: Shri Mahita Nayar, Ld. DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 22Section 263Section 68

Nyssa Corporation Ltd. Is a penny stock scrip which has been used by the beneficiary to launder money in the garb of Long Term Capital Gains while claiming tax exemption under section 10(38) of the I.T. Act, 1961 or by claiming Short Term Capital Loss. It is observed that ... share price. The persons selling the scrip when the price of scrip is high at its peal are all beneficiaries of bogus long term capital gain. The exit providers were not able to provide any logical explanation of the source of funds they have invested in the scrip when they