← 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

Robin Singh Chauhan, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 29(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 7074/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Nov 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2012-13 Robin Singh Chauhan, Vs Acit, 100/1, Gautam Nagar, Circle-29(1), New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aaepc9857F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Smt. Rano Jain, Advocate & Shri Venkatesh Chaurasia, Ca Revenue By : Shri Atiq Ahmed, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 28.10.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.11.2021 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 27Th September, 2017 Of The Cit(A)-10, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Years 2012- 13. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, In Brief Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Derives Income From Long-Term Capital Gain & Other Sources. He Filed His Return Of Income On 28Th July, 2012 Declaring The Total Income At Rs2,61,98,009/- Which Was Processed U/S 143(1). Subsequently, The Case Was Selected For Compulsory Scrutiny Under Cass. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, The Ao Noted That The Assessee Has Shown An Income Of Rs.2,46,33,865/- Under The Head ‘Long- Term Capital Gain.’ The Assessee Has Claimed Deduction U/S 54 Of The Act For An Amount Of Rs.2,05,71,400/- On Account Of Investment In Two Properties. The Calculation Of The Cost Of Acquisition Of The New Property As Submitted By The Assessee & Reproduced By The Ao Is As Under:-

For Appellant: Smt. Rano Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Atiq Ahmed, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 54

years 2012- 13. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, in brief are that the assessee is an individual and derives income from long-term capital gain and other sources. He filed his return of income on 28th July, 2012 declaring the total income at Rs2,61,98,009/- which ... course of assessment proceedings, the AO noted that the assessee has shown an income of Rs.2,46,33,865/- under the head ‘Long- term capital gain.’ The assessee has claimed deduction u/s 54 of the Act for an amount of Rs.2,05,71,400/- on account of investment

Ms. Uma Gupta, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 3818/DEL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Oct 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2006-07 Uma Gupta, Vs. Acit, Aerens Bimaldeep Complex, Central Circle-9, Behind Pocket-3, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aahpg0455E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rajeshwar Painuly, Ca Revenue By : Shri Ajay Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 05.10.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.10.2021 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Ex Parte Order Dated 23Rd March, 2016 Of The Cit(A)-25, Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2006-07. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That A Search & Seizure & Survey Operation U/S 132/133A Of The It Act, 1961 Were Conducted On 17Th August, 2011 In The Case Of The Assessee Along With Other Cases Of The Group At Various Residential & Business Premises. In Response To Notice U/S 153A, The Assessee Filed The Return Of Income Declaring Income From House Property At Rs.1,26,000/-, Income From Bank Interest At Rs.241/- & Income From Dividend At Rs.53,050/-. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, The Ao Observed That The Assessee Has Declared Capital Loss On Sale Of Property At Rs.32,536/- Giving Note That The Indexed Cost Of The Property Is More By An Amount Of Rs.32,536/- Than The Sale Consideration Of The Land. However, In The Balance Sheet, The Assessee Has Credited A Sum Of Rs.80,032.67 As Profit On Sale Of Land. In Absence Of Any Proper Explanation From The Side Of The Assessee, The Ao Treated The Long-Term Capital Gain At Rs.80,032.67 & Determined The Total Income Of The Assessee At Rs.1,71,997/-, After Allowing Deduction U/S 80C At Rs.34,276/- & Allowing The Exemption U/S 10(34) Of The Act On Dividend Income At Rs.53,050/-.

For Appellant: Shri Rajeshwar Painuly, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 10(34)Section 132Section 153ASection 234BSection 48Section 80C

profit on sale of land. In absence of any proper explanation from the side of the assessee, the AO treated the long-term capital gain at Rs.80,032.67 and determined the total income of the assessee at Rs.1,71,997/-, after allowing deduction u/s 80C at Rs.34,276/- and allowing ... Assessee has claimed a Profit of Rs. 80,032.67 as a Loss of Rs.32,536/- and hence the Assessing Officer assessed the Long Term Capital Gain as Rs. 80,032/-. Even at the Appellate stage, the discrepancy was not resolved. As observed earlier, no compliance was made despite repeated opportunities