← 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

Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(3), Ahmedabad, Aayakar Bhawan, Vejalpur vs. Jasmine Jayantibhai Sanghavi, Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1779/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad02 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kambleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1779/Ahd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17) बनाम/ Income-Tax Officer Jasmine Jayantibhai Ward-1(2)(3), Ahmedabad Sanghavi Vs. 7-F, Swetal Flat, Khanpur Bai Centre, Khanpur, Ahmedabad, Gujarat - 380001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aqcps1433R (Appellant) .. (Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri Suresh Chand Meena, Sr. Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Sunil Talati, Ar Date Of Hearing 01/12/2025 02/12/2025 Date Of Pronouncement O R D E R The Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 08.08.2025 Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, For Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Filed By The Revenue Are As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Chand Meena, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Talati, AR
Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69ASection 69C

statement, demat account statement transaction statement, Axis bank account statements, details of share before the AO. The AO observed that the assessee calculated long term capital gain by selling scrip of M/s. Nobel Polimers Limited in the capital gain computation statements but did not show the long term capital gain ... bogus long term capital gone in his income tax return for the said assessment year and, thus, added Rs.1,98,723/- as bogus long term capital gain u/s.69A of the Act as accommodation entry. 4. Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before

Tiruchengode Sakthi Spinners Pvt. Ltd., Namakkal vs. ITO, Ward-1, Tiruchengode

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

ITA 2417/CHNY/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Dec 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2417/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2023-24 Tiruchengode Sakthi Spinners Private Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Limited, 67/3B, Melkallupalayam B.O., Ward 1, Namakkal 637 403. Tiruchengode. [Pan:Aaact7666A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate (Erode) ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. M. Subashri, Addl. Cit (Virtual) सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 02.12.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 02.12.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30.06.2025 Passed By The Addl/Jcit(A)-1, Noida, For The Assessment Year 2023-24. 2. Besides Challenging The Order Of The First Appellate Authority On Merits, The Assessee Vide Ground No. 5 Challenged Legal Issue That The First Appellate Authority Has Exceeded The Powers As Contemplated In Section 251(1A) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate (Erode)For Respondent: Ms. M. Subashri, Addl. CIT (Virtual)
Section 143(1)Section 251Section 48

software at page Nos. 105 to 173, wherein, referring to page 137, he submits that the assessee clearly mentioned under the Col. Long term capital gains, ii(b) about total cost of improvement with indexation with reference to cost of improvement and year of improvement vide sub-paras

Syed Mohamed Sathik Ali, Dindigul vs. ITO, Ward-1(3), Dindigul

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

ITA 2362/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2362/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Syed Mohamed Sathik Ali, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, C/O Shri T.N. Seetharaman, Advocate, Ward 1(3), # 384 (Old No. 196), Lloyds Road, Dindigul. Chennai 600 086. [Pan: Ajdps6560R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri T.N. Seetharaman, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. M. Subashri, Addl. Cit (Virtual) सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 20.11.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 01.12.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30.06.2025 Passed By The Addl/Jcit(A)-1, Nashik For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Raised 5 Grounds Of Appeal Amongst Which, The Only Issue Emanates For Our Consideration As To Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified In Confirming The Addition Made As Income From Capital Gains

For Appellant: Shri T.N. Seetharaman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. M. Subashri, Addl. CIT (Virtual)
Section 143(3)

through sale of Silver Oak grown as shade trees in tea estate, but, however, the Assessing Officer denied and treated the same as long term capital gain, which was confirmed by the ld. CIT(A). We note that whether the sales of cut/sized Silver Oak trees grown as shade trees