← 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

DCIT 1(1), Mumbai vs. Acc Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 1185/MUM/2009[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Mar 2022AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1185/Mum/2009 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2003-04) Dcit-1(1) बिधम/ M/S. Acc Ltd. Room No.579, Aayakar Cement House, 121, M. K. Vs. Bhavan, Mumbai-400020. Road, Mumbai-400020. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaact1507C (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Ms.Shailja Rai (Dr) Assessee By: Shri Yogesh Thar सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 10/01/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 02/03/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 28.11.2008 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -I Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2003- 04. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: - " L. “Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Cit (A) Is Right In Directing To Delete The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer On Account Of Unutilized Modvat Credit & Further In Directing To Allow The Relief Of Rs. 12,09,86,528/- Instead Of Rs. 3,21,85,825/-.” A.Y.2003-04 2. “Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Cit (A) Is Right In Deleting The Addition In Respect Of Corporation Tax Paid At Saudi Arabia Of Rs. 2,05,75,346/-.”

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh TharFor Respondent: Ms.Shailja Rai (DR)
Section 115JSection 154Section 251Section 80H

Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT (A) is right in allowing assessee‟s claim of long term capital gain in respect of sales at Kaza mines and Nimabur at Kaza south.” 5. “Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case ... assessee against the revenue. 11 A.Y.2003-04 ISSUE NO.4 12. Under this issue the revenue has challenged the allowance of claim of long-term capital gains in respect of sale at Kaza mines and Nimabur at Kaza South. This issue has already been decided by the Hon’ble ITAT

Mr. Navinchandra Shah, Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT -20, Mumbai

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

ITA 517/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleita No. 517 & 518/Mum/2021 (A.Y: 2014-15 & 2015-16) Mr. Navinchandra Shah Vs. Pr.Cit- 20, 10/11, Harganga Room No.418, Mahal, Khodadad 4Th Floor, Circle, Dadar-Tt, Piramal Chamber, Mumbai – 400014. Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai - 400012 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaeps6096A Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.Neelkanth Khandelwal.Ar Respondent By : Mr.Rakesh Garg, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 24.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 24.02.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: These Are The Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Principle Commissioner Of Income Tax (Pcit)-20, Mumbai Passed U/S 263 Of The Act. Since The Issues In These Appeal Are Common & Identical, Hence They Are Clubbed, Heard & Consolidated Order Is Passed.

For Appellant: Mr.Neelkanth Khandelwal.ARFor Respondent: Mr.Rakesh Garg, CIT DR
Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 263Section 68

submitted the information and the case was discussed. The A.O on perusal of the facts and the submissions found that assessee has obtained long term capital gains on penny stock shares and claimed the exemption u/s ITA No. 507 & 508/Mum/2021 Mr. Navinchandra Shah., Mumbai ... order. Finally the A.O was not satisfied with the explanations and determined the total income with the denial of exemption of Long Term Capital gains u/sec10(38) of the act and made addition of sale proceeds u/s 68 of the Act of Rs.8,81,74,941/- and assessed the total

Skil Infrastructure Ltd, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Range Central Circle 6(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 5347/MUM/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 5347/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) बिधम/ Skill Infrastructure Ltd. Dcit, Range Central Circle- 209, Skill House, Bank 6(3) Vs. Room No. 1905, 19Th Floor, Street Cross Lane, Fort, Mumbai-400023. Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 5656/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Dcit, Range Central Circle- बिधम/ Skill Infrastructure Ltd. 6(3) 209, Skill House, Bank Street Vs. Room No.1905, 19Th Floor, Cross Lane, Fort, Mumbai- Air India Building, Nariman 400023. Point, Mumbai-400021. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aahca5892 (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Jayant Jhaveri (Dr) Assessee By: None सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 01/12/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 24/02/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee As Well As Revenue Have Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Order Dated 14.06.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -54, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2016-17. Ita. No.5347/Mum/2019

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Jayant Jhaveri (DR)
Section 10(38)Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14A

raised the following grounds: - "1 On facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in including Long Term Capital Gain of Rs.9.02 crores on sale of listed securities as exempt income for the purposes of section 14A. In doing ... further erred in rejecting the arguments of the appellant, that it being a corporate assessee, Long Term Capital Gain u/s. 10(38) though exempt in normal computation is includable for the purposes of book profits under section 115JB of the Income Tax Act. The Assessing Officer therefore be directed

DCIT - 10 (3)(1), Mumbai vs. Netlink Solutions (India) Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the learned Assessing Officer is dismissed

ITA 2021/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Feb 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am The Dy. Commissioner Of M/S Netlink Solutions (India) Income-Tax, Pvt. Ltd. 10(3)(1), 57, Laxmi Plaza, 2Nd Floor, Room No.212, Laxmi Industrial Estate, Vs. Aayakar Bhawan, New Link Road, M.K. Road, Churchgate, Andheri West, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 069 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacv3426V M/S Netlink Solutions (India) The Dy. Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd. Income-Tax, 57, Laxmi Plaza, 10(3)(1), 2Nd Floor, Room No.212, Laxmi Industrial Estate, Vs. New Link Road, Aayakar Bhawan, Andheri West, M.K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400 069 Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: S/Shri Madhur Agarwal, Adv &For Respondent: Shri C.T. Mathews, SR. AR
Section 10(38)Section 143Section 143(3)

technology Ltd. was also not genuine. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in confirming the addition of long term capital gain of ₹1,39,79,838/-, short term capital gain of ₹82,18,221/- and treating the same as income from other sources ... resultant profit/ loss on the entire non-genuine transactions i.e. capital loss of ₹12,05,287/- without appreciating that the transaction related to Long Term Capital Gain (₹ 1,39,79,838/-) and Short Term Capital Gain (₹82,18,221/-) being sham transactions, the assessee had introduced its own unaccounted money

Netlink Solutions (India) Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle 10(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the learned Assessing Officer is dismissed

ITA 1657/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Feb 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am The Dy. Commissioner Of M/S Netlink Solutions (India) Income-Tax, Pvt. Ltd. 10(3)(1), 57, Laxmi Plaza, 2Nd Floor, Room No.212, Laxmi Industrial Estate, Vs. Aayakar Bhawan, New Link Road, M.K. Road, Churchgate, Andheri West, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 069 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacv3426V M/S Netlink Solutions (India) The Dy. Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd. Income-Tax, 57, Laxmi Plaza, 10(3)(1), 2Nd Floor, Room No.212, Laxmi Industrial Estate, Vs. New Link Road, Aayakar Bhawan, Andheri West, M.K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400 069 Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: S/Shri Madhur Agarwal, Adv &For Respondent: Shri C.T. Mathews, SR. AR
Section 10(38)Section 143Section 143(3)

technology Ltd. was also not genuine. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in confirming the addition of long term capital gain of ₹1,39,79,838/-, short term capital gain of ₹82,18,221/- and treating the same as income from other sources ... resultant profit/ loss on the entire non-genuine transactions i.e. capital loss of ₹12,05,287/- without appreciating that the transaction related to Long Term Capital Gain (₹ 1,39,79,838/-) and Short Term Capital Gain (₹82,18,221/-) being sham transactions, the assessee had introduced its own unaccounted money

Asst CIT Cir 5(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Tolani Shipping Co. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 7035/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Feb 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.7035/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) बिधम/ Acit-5(3)(2) M/S. Tolani Shipping Co. Room No.573, Aayakar Ltd. Vs. Bhavan, 5Th Floor, M. K. 10-A, Bakhtawar, Nariman Road, Mumbai-400020. Point, Mumbai-400021. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaact4127C (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Rajesh Mishra (Dr) Assessee By: Shri Satya Prakash सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 18/02/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22/02/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 22.08.2016 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -58 Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2008- 09. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: - "1. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Justified In Restricting The Addition Of Rs.30,96,52,860/- Made By The Ao/Tpo To Rs.12,00,43,750/- On Account Of Profit Split Method, Ignoring That The Tpo Rejected A.Y.2008-09 The Cup Method After Giving Detailed Reasons In The Order Passed U/S 92Ca(3).

For Appellant: Shri Satya PrakashFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Mishra (DR)
Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 50Section 92C

adjusted long term capital loss on sale of equity oriented mutual funds of Rs.97,21,229/- against the other taxable long term capital gain. The contention of the assessee is that the exemption u/s 10(38) was not claimed on profit on sale of units of equity oriented mutual funds ... A.Y.2008-09 hence, is entitled to set off the said loss against taxable long term capital gains but the same was not found allowable, hence, the same was added to the income of the assessee. It was also noticed that the assessee has claimed the short term capital gain on mutual

Smt. Santosh Anil Parmar, Mumbai vs. ITO-22(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2008-09 and 2009-10 are allowed

ITA 7069/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Feb 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 7067/मुं/2019 ("न.व 2007-08) आअसं. 7068/मुं/2019 ("न.व 2008-09) आअसं. 7069/मुं/2019 ("न.व 2009-10) Smt. Santosh Anil Parmar, 501, Prabhat Co-Op Hs Society Ltd. Plot No.;415A, D.K.Sandhu Marg , Chembur, Mumbai 400 071 Pan:Agkpp-5786-E ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Income Tax Officer-22(2)(2), 4Th Floor, Tower No.6, Vashi Rly Station, Navi Mumbai 400 703 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Devendra Kothari ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri R.A. Dhyani सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 26/11/2021 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 21/02/2022

For Appellant: Shri Devendra KothariFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Dhyani
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

year under appeal the assessee had sold shares of M/s. Buniyad Chemicals Ltd.. The gain on sale said shares were declared as long term capital gain in the return of income The original return of the assessee was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Income ... Year 2006-07, the assessee had sold shares of Buniyad Chemicals through M/s. Mahasagar Securities Pvt. Ltd. The assessee disclosed the income as long term capital gain, exempt from tax. The Assessing Officer disallowed assessee’s claim. In first appellate proceedings the relief was granted by the CIT(A) accepting

Smt Santosh Anil Parmar, Mumbai vs. ITO-22(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2008-09 and 2009-10 are allowed

ITA 7067/MUM/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Feb 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 7067/मुं/2019 ("न.व 2007-08) आअसं. 7068/मुं/2019 ("न.व 2008-09) आअसं. 7069/मुं/2019 ("न.व 2009-10) Smt. Santosh Anil Parmar, 501, Prabhat Co-Op Hs Society Ltd. Plot No.;415A, D.K.Sandhu Marg , Chembur, Mumbai 400 071 Pan:Agkpp-5786-E ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Income Tax Officer-22(2)(2), 4Th Floor, Tower No.6, Vashi Rly Station, Navi Mumbai 400 703 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Devendra Kothari ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri R.A. Dhyani सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 26/11/2021 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 21/02/2022

For Appellant: Shri Devendra KothariFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Dhyani
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

year under appeal the assessee had sold shares of M/s. Buniyad Chemicals Ltd.. The gain on sale said shares were declared as long term capital gain in the return of income The original return of the assessee was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Income ... Year 2006-07, the assessee had sold shares of Buniyad Chemicals through M/s. Mahasagar Securities Pvt. Ltd. The assessee disclosed the income as long term capital gain, exempt from tax. The Assessing Officer disallowed assessee’s claim. In first appellate proceedings the relief was granted by the CIT(A) accepting

Mr. Santokumar Gograj Adukia, Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT-17, Mumbai

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

ITA 990/MUM/2021[202-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Feb 2022

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vp & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 990/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Mr. Santosh Kumar Gograj बिधम/ Pcit-17 Room No.120, 1St Floor, Adukia Vs. B-401 Twin Apartment, Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To C- Marve Road, Opp. Marve 43, G Block, Bandra Kurla Nsg. Home,Malad- Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400064. Mumbai-400051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaapa7459F (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri Shailesh Bandi Revenue By: Shri A. K. Kardam (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 15/12/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 18/02/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 27.03.2021 Passed By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax - 17 Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Pcit)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2012- 13 In Which The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-17 Has Invoked The Provisions U/S 263 Of The I.T. Act, 1961. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Pr. C.I.T, Mumbai-17, Has Grossly Erred In Passing An Order U/S 263 Of The I.T Act, Without Providing An Opportunity Of Personal Hearing, Which Is Against The Principles Of Natural Justice & Is Bad In Law.

For Appellant: Shri Shailesh BandiFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Kardam (DR)
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 69ASection 69C

assessee‟s contention is that the transaction with M/s. Sampada Chemicals Ltd. has already been examined in the A.Y.2011-12. The assessee claimed the „Long Term Capital Gain‟ (LTCG) of Rs.12,73,188/- derived in the scrip named M/s. Sampada Chemicals Ltd. pertaining to the A.Y.2011-12. Considering the said transaction ... that the order is erroneous in so far as the prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. In the relevant assessment year no Long Term Capital Gain was claimed. Short Term Capital Gain (STCG) was claimed to the tune of Rs.27,897/- and taxed. After reducing the DMAT charges