← 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

Mr. Lalitkumar Thanmaljain, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 26 (2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4915/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalemr. Lalitkumar Vs. Ito, Ward – 26(2)(1) Thanmal Jain, Pratyaksha Kar Bhavan, A/705, Bawa Tower Bkc, Bandra East Chs, Narayan Nagar, Mumbai -400051. Chunabatti, Mumbai-400022. Pan/Gir No. Aacpj9078M Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri Nitesh Jain.Ar Respondent By : Shri Manoj Sinha.Dr Date Of Hearing 28.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 29.07.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-38, Mumbai Passed U/S 143(3) & 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Jain.ARFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Sinha.DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

price The addition of & 11,00,000/- was made by the learned Assessing Officer under the head short term capital gain instead of long term capital gain. The said ground was not pressed by the Assessee in the appeal filed before the Hon'ble CIT(A). However, on the mere ... addition from Rs.11Lakhs to Rs35Lakhs being the sale consideration on sale of flat and was treated as short term capital gains instead of Long Term capital gains. The CIT(A) has also erred in enhancing the addition without opportunity of being heard and the assessee has a good case

Rupal Kashyap Mehta, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward 21 (3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1235/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1235/Mum/2019 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Ito, Ward 21(3)(1), Rupal Kahyap Mehta Income Tax Office, 26/27, A Wing, Ahuja Towers, बनाम/ Piramal Chambers, Dr. Raja Bhau Desai Road, Vs. Ss Roa Marg, Parel, Prabhadevi, Mumbai-400 025 Mumbai-400 012 स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Agrpm5338E (अपीलधथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलधथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal, Ld. Ar प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. Mahita Nair, Ld. Dr सुनवधईकीतधरीख/ : 04.07.2022 Date Of Hearing घोर्णधकीतधरीख / : 28.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal, LdFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, Ld. DR
Section 10(38)Section 127Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 68

validity of reopening u/s 147 on various counts. Secondly, addition of Rs. 5,79,10,300/- made u/s 68 of the Act for Long Term Capital Gain on sale of shares M/s Shreenath Commercial and Financial Ltd. Thirdly, the AO has erred in passing the order u/s 147 instead ... reasons was recorded on the basis 3 I.T.A. No. 1235/Mum/2019 Rupal Kashyap Mehta of information that assessee has taken Long Term Capital Gain on alleged penny stock. The reasons recorded by the AO are as under:- “Information has been received from the Directorate of Investigation that an organized /racket

Smt.Vani Shree, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-6(2)(4), Bangalore

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

ITA 383/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2015-16 Smt. Vani Shree, No. 49, 3Rd Cross, The Income-Tax Marappa Thota, Officer, J.C. Nagar, Ward 6 (2)(4), Bangalore – 560 006. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Gayps9756K Appellant Respondent : Shri S.V. Ravi Shankar, Assessee By Advocate : Shri Ramesh B.R., Addl. Cit Revenue By (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 09-06-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-07-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against Order Dated 05.12.2018 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A)-6, Bangalore For A.Y. 2015-16 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Bengaluru, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Act In So Far As It Is Against The Appellant Is Opposed To Law, Weight Of Evidence, Natural Justice, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Appellant'S Case. 2. The Appellant Denies Herself To Be Liable To Be Assessed To Total Income Of Rs.2,16,39,499/- On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case.

For Respondent: Shri S.V. Ravi shankar
Section 143(2)Section 234ASection 250Section 54F

learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) is not justified in law in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,99,07,549/- long term capital gains on the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the appellant is eligible ... Appeals) failed to appreciate that the appellant is entitled to point out the mistake in the assessment proceedings and claim that the long term capital gains is required to be charged to tax in AY 2012-13 as against declared by the appellant in AY 2015-16 on the facts