← 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. Khadir Ahmed, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 6(3)(3), Bengaluru

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

ITA 393/BANG/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Mar 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2016-17 Mr. Khadir Ahmed, # 836, Pipeline Road, The Income-Tax Opp: Bbmp Ward Office, Officer, Yeshwanthpur, Ward – 6 [3][3], Bangalore – 560 022. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Afxpa8334H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Deepesh Waghale, Ca : Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl. Revenue By Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 16-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Arises Out Of Order Dated 28.02.2020 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A)-6, Bangalore For Assessment Year 2016-17 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Orders Of The Authorities Below In So Far As They Are Against The Appellant, Are Opposed To Law, Equity, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. The Learned Cit[A] Is Not Justified In Sustaining A Sum Of Rs. 52,91,575/-Reckoned At 25% Of The Cash Deposits Made In The Bank Account Of Rs.2,11,66,300/- As Estimated Income Of The Appellant As Against The Addition Of Rs.64,05,000/- Made By The Learned A.O. As Unexplained Cash Deposits Under The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Appellant'S Case.

For Appellant: Shri Deepesh Waghale, CA
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 234Section 54Section 54F

under section 54. In view of the above, the addition made by the assessing officer towards Long Term Capital Gain amounting to Rs. 40,00,000/ - is deleted. The Assessing Officer is directed Page 4 of 7 to re-compute the capital gain in accordance with section

Kalpana Vinod Paymaster, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir-35 (1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by assessee is allowed

ITA 1665/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं.1665/मुं/2021 ("न.व. 2011-12) Kalpana Vinod Paymaster, 151,Buena Vista, Gen.J.Bhosle Marg, Near Mantralaya, Mumbai – 400 018. Pan: Ajspp-0625-P ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. A.C.I.T, Circle -35(1), Kautalya Bhavan, B.K.C, Bandra (E) ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent Mumbai 400 051. अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Ms. Dinkle Hariya ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Uodal Raj Singh सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 21/03/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 21/03/2022 आदेश/ Order

For Appellant: Ms. Dinkle HariyaFor Respondent: Shri Uodal Raj Singh
Section 154Section 156Section 271(1)(c)Section 80G

while passing assessment order, the Assessing Officer allowed the claim of set off of long term capital loss of Rs.1,81,499/- against long term capital gain of Rs.25,32,371/- in a suo-motu rectification order dated 14/07/2014. Further, the Assessing Officer while passing the assessment order dated 24/03/2014 ... Rs.1,25,000/- u/s.80GGA of the Act. The assessee in the revised computation of income filed at the time of assessment offered long term capital gain of Rs.23,50,872/- at a special rate of 10% without indexation benefit. The claim of the assessee was accepted by the Assessing Officer

M/S. Sasken Technologies Limited, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range - 6, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2546/BANG/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Mar 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Sasken Technologies Limited, Vs. Jcit, No.139/25, Ring Road, Domlur, Special Range – 6, Bengaluru-560071. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaecs 6424 R Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Padam Chand Khincha, Ca Respondent By : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 09.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.03.2022 O R D E R Per N.V. Vasudevanthis Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 27.11.2019 Of Cit(A), Bengaluru -10, Relating To Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Ground No.1 Raised By The Assessee Is General & Calls For No Specific Adjudication. Grounds Nos.2 & 3 Raised By The Assessee Is With Regard To The Issue Whether The Gain On Sale / Assignment Of Intellectual Property Rights (Ipr) Is Assessable To Tax At All & If So Assessable To Tax Whether It Has To Be Assessed To Tax Under The Head “Income From Business Or Profession” Or “Capital Gain”. Page 2 Of 31

For Appellant: Shri. Padam Chand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 1

income filed for Assessment Year 2016-17, the assessee offered the sum received under Settlement Agreement dated 21.03.2016 to tax under the head “Long Term Capital Gain” (LTCG). In the books of accounts, the assessee had shown this receipt as ‘exceptional item of income’. In note 42 to the Note

Mr Sanjay Dutt, Mumbai vs. JCIT Range 11 (1), Mumbai

ITA 91/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singh. आअसं. 7109/मुं/2012 ("न.व.2004-05) आअसं. 91/मुं/2020 ("न.व.2011-12) आअसं. 92/मुं/2020 ("न.व.2012-13) Sanjay S. Dutt, 1101, Imperial Heights, Smt. Nargis Dutt Road,Pali Hill, Bandra (W), Mumbai 400 050 : अपीलाथ"/ Appellant Pan:Aajpd-2027-K बनाम/ Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income –Tax 11(1), Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020. : ""थ"/ Respondent आअसं. 2414/मुं/2015 ("न.व.2005-06) Asstt. Commissioner Of Income –Tax 16(1), Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020. : अपीलाथ"/ Appellant बनाम/ Vs. Sanjay S. Dutt, 1101, Imperial Hights, Smt. Nargis Dutt Road,Pali Hill, Bandra (W), Mumbai 400 050 Pan:Aajpd-2027-K : ""थ"/ Respondent Assessee By : Shri Stany Saldana Revenue By : Shri B.K. Bagchi

For Appellant: Shri Stany SaldanaFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Bagchi
Section 54F

grounds. The issues that emerges from the grounds of appeal are valuation of property as on 01/04/1981 and consequent determination of Long Term Capital Gain(LTCG) and denial of exemption under section 54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( in short ‘the Act’). 3. This appeal is time barred ... 14/01/2015 for the assessment year 2005-06. The Revenue in appeal has raised solitary ground assailing the finding of CIT(A) in allowing Long Term Capital Gains on sale of land, whereas the agreement entered into by the assessee with the buyers of flats does not state that ownership

ACIT 16(1), Mumbai vs. Sanjay Dutt, Mumbai

ITA 2414/MUM/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Mar 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singh. आअसं. 7109/मुं/2012 ("न.व.2004-05) आअसं. 91/मुं/2020 ("न.व.2011-12) आअसं. 92/मुं/2020 ("न.व.2012-13) Sanjay S. Dutt, 1101, Imperial Heights, Smt. Nargis Dutt Road,Pali Hill, Bandra (W), Mumbai 400 050 : अपीलाथ"/ Appellant Pan:Aajpd-2027-K बनाम/ Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income –Tax 11(1), Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020. : ""थ"/ Respondent आअसं. 2414/मुं/2015 ("न.व.2005-06) Asstt. Commissioner Of Income –Tax 16(1), Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020. : अपीलाथ"/ Appellant बनाम/ Vs. Sanjay S. Dutt, 1101, Imperial Hights, Smt. Nargis Dutt Road,Pali Hill, Bandra (W), Mumbai 400 050 Pan:Aajpd-2027-K : ""थ"/ Respondent Assessee By : Shri Stany Saldana Revenue By : Shri B.K. Bagchi

For Appellant: Shri Stany SaldanaFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Bagchi
Section 54F

grounds. The issues that emerges from the grounds of appeal are valuation of property as on 01/04/1981 and consequent determination of Long Term Capital Gain(LTCG) and denial of exemption under section 54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( in short ‘the Act’). 3. This appeal is time barred ... 14/01/2015 for the assessment year 2005-06. The Revenue in appeal has raised solitary ground assailing the finding of CIT(A) in allowing Long Term Capital Gains on sale of land, whereas the agreement entered into by the assessee with the buyers of flats does not state that ownership

Sanjay S. Dutt, Mumbai vs. Asst 11(1), Mumbai

ITA 7109/MUM/2012[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Mar 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singh. आअसं. 7109/मुं/2012 ("न.व.2004-05) आअसं. 91/मुं/2020 ("न.व.2011-12) आअसं. 92/मुं/2020 ("न.व.2012-13) Sanjay S. Dutt, 1101, Imperial Heights, Smt. Nargis Dutt Road,Pali Hill, Bandra (W), Mumbai 400 050 : अपीलाथ"/ Appellant Pan:Aajpd-2027-K बनाम/ Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income –Tax 11(1), Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020. : ""थ"/ Respondent आअसं. 2414/मुं/2015 ("न.व.2005-06) Asstt. Commissioner Of Income –Tax 16(1), Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020. : अपीलाथ"/ Appellant बनाम/ Vs. Sanjay S. Dutt, 1101, Imperial Hights, Smt. Nargis Dutt Road,Pali Hill, Bandra (W), Mumbai 400 050 Pan:Aajpd-2027-K : ""थ"/ Respondent Assessee By : Shri Stany Saldana Revenue By : Shri B.K. Bagchi

For Appellant: Shri Stany SaldanaFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Bagchi
Section 54F

grounds. The issues that emerges from the grounds of appeal are valuation of property as on 01/04/1981 and consequent determination of Long Term Capital Gain(LTCG) and denial of exemption under section 54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( in short ‘the Act’). 3. This appeal is time barred ... 14/01/2015 for the assessment year 2005-06. The Revenue in appeal has raised solitary ground assailing the finding of CIT(A) in allowing Long Term Capital Gains on sale of land, whereas the agreement entered into by the assessee with the buyers of flats does not state that ownership