← 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

Naynaben Arunbhai Jain, Ahura Nagar Society vs. PCIT Surat-1, Aayakar Bhavan

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 572/SRT/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat19 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.571 & 572/Srt/2024 Assessment Years: (2013-14 & 2014-15) (Hybrid Hearing) Naynaben Arunbhai Jain Principal Commissioner Of बनाम/ 255-257, Ahura Nagar Society Income-Tax, Surat-1, Income Tax Vs. Surat – 395009 Office, 123, 1Stfloor, Aaykar Bhavan, Majura Gate, Surat- 395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Acnpj 5784 D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से / Appellant By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca राज" की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Ravinder Sindhu, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 23/07/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 19/09/2025

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

pass fresh assessment order after taking into consideration the aforesaid issue of ITA Nos.571-572/SRT/2024/AYs.13-14 & 14-15 Naynaben A Jain long term capital gain being claimed as exempt u/s.10(38) of the Act by the assessee. 6. Aggrieved by the said order of the Ld. PCIT ... recorded would show that the assessment in this case was reopened on the same issue with the observation that the assessee had claimed long-term capital gain on sale of shares of INDINFO; that as per the information available with the AO, the said scrip, in which the assessee

Naynaben Arunbhai Jain, Ahura Nagar Society vs. PCIT Surat-1, Aayakar Bhavan

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 571/SRT/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat19 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.571 & 572/Srt/2024 Assessment Years: (2013-14 & 2014-15) (Hybrid Hearing) Naynaben Arunbhai Jain Principal Commissioner Of बनाम/ 255-257, Ahura Nagar Society Income-Tax, Surat-1, Income Tax Vs. Surat – 395009 Office, 123, 1Stfloor, Aaykar Bhavan, Majura Gate, Surat- 395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Acnpj 5784 D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से / Appellant By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca राज" की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Ravinder Sindhu, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 23/07/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 19/09/2025

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

pass fresh assessment order after taking into consideration the aforesaid issue of ITA Nos.571-572/SRT/2024/AYs.13-14 & 14-15 Naynaben A Jain long term capital gain being claimed as exempt u/s.10(38) of the Act by the assessee. 6. Aggrieved by the said order of the Ld. PCIT ... recorded would show that the assessment in this case was reopened on the same issue with the observation that the assessee had claimed long-term capital gain on sale of shares of INDINFO; that as per the information available with the AO, the said scrip, in which the assessee

Krishnamoorthy Vijayaraghavan, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-5(1), Coimbatore

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

ITA 1976/CHNY/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1976/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Krishnamoorthy The Income Tax Officer, Vijayaraghavan, Vs. Non-Corporate Ward 5(1), 2A, Tulive Antara, Chennai. Old No.4, New No.9, Karpagambal Nagar, Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004. Pan: Acppv 0131J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18.09.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 19.09.2025

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 250Section 54Section 54(2)

information that assessee had sold an immovable property during the relevant assessment year. Since assessee had not filed his return of income admitting long term capital gains, the AO issued notice u/s.148 of the Act on 31.03.2017 calling upon the assessee to file the return of income. The assessee ... issued. In :- 3 -: response to notice issued u/s.142(1) of the Act, the assessee furnished the working of Long-Term Capital Gains and investment details vide letter dated 20.11.2018. The AO noted from the details filed that assessee had made investment in the new asset only on 19.01.2012 and show

Ramkrushna Narayan Kanzode, Nagpur vs. ITO Ward 4(5), Nagpur

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 271/NAG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur18 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2015-16 Mr. Ramkrushna Narayan Income Tax Officer Kanzode, Ward 4(5) Nagpur Plot No 95, Near Jyoti Kirana, Bsnl Building Seminary Vs. Sham Nagar, Hills, Hudkeshwar Road, Nagpur-440001. Nagpur-440024. Pan: Dpbpk6038B (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Pankaj Kumar, Ld. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 24.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.09.2025 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 27.02.2025, Impugned Herein, Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (In Short Ld. Commissioner) U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For The A.Y. 2015-16. 2. In The Instant Case, The Assessing Officer (Ao) Vide Assessment Order Dated 28.12.2018 U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 153C Of The Act, Made An Addition Of Rs.34,77,643/- Being Disallowance On Account Of Long Term Capital Gain.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar, Ld. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 250

order dated 28.12.2018 u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153C of the Act, made an addition of Rs.34,77,643/- being disallowance on account of long term capital gain. 3. The Assessee, being aggrieved, though challenged the said addition by filing first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner, however, despite of sending various

Sh. Baljinder Kumar Aggarwal 171, Model Town Ludhiana, Punjab vs. Jatin Abbi the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1 Ludhiana, Punjab

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 689/CHANDI/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh17 Sept 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 689/Chd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 बनाम Shri Baljinder Kumar Aggarwal, The Acit, 171, Model Town, Circle-1, Vs Ludhiana. Ludhiana. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan /Tan No: Bmcpk7473A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent िनधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Manav Bansal, Cit, Dr तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21.08.2025 उदघोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17.09.2025

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 148

This return was accepted by the Revenue u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act. The assessee has claimed exemption of Long Term Capital Gain on sale of shares of M/s Twenty First Century India Ltd. (TFCIL) amounting to Rs.3,18,35,183/-. According to the AO, he has received ... providing accommodation entries. Thus, AO harboured the belief that assessee traded in the penny stock and its claim for exemption of the Long Term Capital Gain is not a genuine one. The AO, accordingly, reopened the assessment. ITA 689/CHD/2024 A.Y. 2012-13 3 4. A perusal of the record would

Rajni Kumar Wife of Shri Brig. Narender Kumar H.No.394, Sector-21, Gurgaonn, Gurgaon vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward-3(1), Gurgaon

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

ITA 3188/DEL/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Sept 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarrajni Kumar, Vs. Ito, Ward 3 (1), W/O Shri Brig. Narender Kumar, Gurgaon. House No.394, Sector 21, Gurgaon – 122 001 (Haryana). (Pan : Ayypk1781A) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Sr Date Of Hearing : 19.08.2025 Date Of Order : 17.09.2025 O R D E R Per S.Rifaur Rahman,Am: 1. The Assessee Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated 27.09.2023 For The Assessment Year 2017-18 & The Assessment Order Was Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act’).

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. SR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54Section 54F

relevant issues under consideration are, the assessee sold an immovable property on 18.05.2016 for a consideration of Rs.1,25,00,000/- on which long term capital gain of Rs.92,57,020/- was declared in the return of income. The assessee claimed deduction arising out of abovesaid transaction by making ... property has been utilized for the purchase of the new property. The purchase value of the property is more than the long-term capital gains taxable in the hands of the assessee. This fact is very crucial. The conduct of the assessee unequivocally demonstrates that the assessee was in fact