← 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

Seshank Mahadev, Chennai vs. Deputy Director of Income Tax, CPC Bengaluru

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

ITA 2274/CHNY/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Oct 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2274/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2024-25 Seshank Mahadev, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ak 27, Tas Enclave, E2, Golden King Corporate Ward 3(1), Villa Apartments, Anna Nagar, Chennai. Chennai 600 040. [Pan:Olwps5532Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Varadharajan, F/O Of Assessee ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri C.P. Solomon, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 22.10.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24.10.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 02.06.2025 Passed By The Addl./Jcit(A), Indore For The Assessment Year 2024-25. 2. At The Outset, We Note That The Cpc Denied The Rebate Claimed By The Assessee Under Section 87A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] Vide Intimation Order Under Section 143(1) Of The Act Dated 12.11.2024. Against The Intimation Order, The Assessee Preferred An 2

For Appellant: Shri Varadharajan, F/o of assesseeFor Respondent: Shri C.P. Solomon, JCIT
Section 111ASection 112ASection 115BSection 143(1)Section 250Section 3Section 87A

rebate under section 87A of the Act is allowable. 4 I.T.A. No.2274/Chny/25 We find the same is acceptable and admittedly, the income under long term capital gains under section 112A of the Act is only ₹.91,172/-, which is not in dispute by the ld. DR and we hold

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Chennai vs. Mohamed Muyeenuddin Pazhoor Kochu Mohamed, Kanchipuram

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

ITA 923/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 923/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 The Deputy Commissioner Of Shri Mohamed Muyeenuddin Income Tax, Vs. Pazhoor Kochu Mohamed, Central Circle 1(2), E1, 2Nd Main Road, Chennai. Juhu Beach, Sholinganallur S.O., Uthandi, Kanchipuram – 600 119. Pan: Aaipm 4366P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Shiva Srinivas, Cit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Darshan Bothra, Ca सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21.10.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 22.10.2025

For Appellant: Shri Shiva Srinivas, CITFor Respondent: Shri Darshan Bothra, CA
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153CSection 194Section 250

assessee and TDS was deducted by the purchaser on behalf of the assessee, the entire sale consideration was taken for computation of Long Term Capital Gains in the hands of the assessee. In computing the above Long-Term Capital Gains, the assessee rejected the assessee’s stand that ... furnished documentary evidence to prove that assessee has paid a sum of Rs.3.10 crores to the other co-owners. Further, the Long-Term Capital Gains computation was varied by rejecting the cost of improvement claimed by the assessee and the construction cost of the residential building. :- 4 -: 4. Aggrieved

Tiruchengodu Sengodagounder, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1, Coimbatore

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

ITA 1961/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1961/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 Tiruchangodu Sengodagounder Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Ramasamy Khannaiyann, Income Tax, 67, Avarampalayam Road, K.R. Puram, Central Circle 1, Coimbatore 641 006. Coimbatore. [Pan:Afzpk7832C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Dharshan Bothra, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 17.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.10.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 26.02.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 20, Chennai, For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 72 Days. The Assessee Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons. Upon Hearing Both The Parties & On Examination Of The Said Affidavit, We Find The Reasons Stated By The Assessee Are Bonafide, Which Really

For Appellant: Shri S. Dharshan Bothra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, Addl. CIT
Section 132Section 143Section 143(3)Section 153A

group case of M/s. Hindusthan Educational and Charitable Trust, wherein, the assessee is Chairman/Managing Trustee. We note that the assessee had offered long term capital gains in the original return of income, which was reclassified as business income by the Assessing Officer in the order passed under section