← 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

Suri Babu Krovvidi, Rajahmundry vs. Income Tax Officer, Vijayawada

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

ITA 409/VIZ/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam12 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.409/Viz/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Shri Suri Babu Krovvidi Vs. Income Tax Officer East Godavari Distt. Vijayawada Pan:Aejpk1777P (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Naresh Gowlikar, Ca (Hybrid) राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 10/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 17/09/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothis Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 21/02/2025 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac Delhi, Relating To A.Y.2016-17. 2. There Is A Delay Of 56 Days In Filing The Present Appeal. The Assessee Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay To Explain The Cause Of The Delay Which Is Supported By An Affidavit. The Learned Counsel For The Assessee Has Submitted That The Assessee Is A Layman & The Assessee Was Not Having Any Knowledge About The Tax & Procedural Requirement Of Filing The Appeal Against The Order Of The Learned Cit (A). He Has Further

For Appellant: Shri Naresh Gowlikar, CA (hybrid)For Respondent: : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 17

same transactions without considering the correct income arising from the said transaction. The learned Counsel for the assessee has pointed out that the Long Term Capital Gains from the said transaction is only Rs.4,03,702/- apart from the salary income of Rs.1,17,692/- against which the Assessing Officer ... Rs.12,53,000/-. Thus, this action of the Assessing Officer is also highly arbitrary when he has assessed the entire sale consideration as Long Term Capital Gains in the hand of the assessee. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer has made another addition on account of cash deposits in the bank account

Vinai Shukla, Lucknow vs. ACIT-1, Lucknow New, Lucknow

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 624/LKW/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow12 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudharyआयकर अपील सं/ Ita No.624/Lkw/2024 ननिाारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18 Vinai Shukla V. Acit-1, Lucknow New 2/280, Vikas Khand Gomti Lucknow Nagar, Lucknow-226010. Pratyaksh Kar Bhawan, Lucknow-226001. Pan:Asnps3558C अपीलार्थी/(Appellant) प्रत्यर्थी/(Respondent) अपीलार्थी कक और से/Appellant By: Ms Shweta Mittal, Ca प्रत्यर्थी कक और से /Respondent By: Shri Prajesh Srivastava, Sr. Dr सुनवाई कक तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 21 08 2025 घोर्णा कक तारीख/ Date Of 12 09 2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Ms Shweta Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Prajesh Srivastava, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 153Section 50C

District Valuation Officer who estimated the fair market value of capital asset at Rs.1,84,68,000/-. Under these facts, the Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) of Rs.1,39,30,412/- Page 3 of 10 was computed by AO adopting sale consideration at Rs.1,84,68,000/-. Therefore, after giving ... capital gain as declared in the return of income, the Assessing Officer made further addition of Rs.84,68,000/- on account of Long Term Capital Gain and assessed total income at Rs.1,41,36,990/-. Aggrieved against this, the assessee carried the matter an appeal before

Urmila Devi, Ghaziabad vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-2(2) (1) Gzb., Ghaziabad

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 2768/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Bleasstt. Year : 2015-16 Urmila Devi, Vs. Ito, Ward 2(2)(1), R-2/44, Raj Nagar, Ghaziabad Ghaziabad (Pan: Agcpd5389H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Saif Ali, Adv. (Through Vc) & Shri Pranav Menon, Adv. Respondent By : Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr. Date Of Hearing 03.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 12.09.2025 Order This Appeal By The Assessee Is Emanating From The Order Of The Nfac, Delhi Order Dated 12.03.2025 Relating To Assessment Year 2015-16 On The Following Grounds:- 1. That The Order U/S. 250 Passed By The Cit(A) Is Bad In Law. 2. That The Cit(A) Has Grossly Erred In Passing Order U/S. 250 With Pre- Conceived Motion & Without Appreciating Material On Records. 3. That The Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Of Exemption Amounting To Rs. 2442775/- Claimed U/S. 54 Of The Act In Respect Of Ltcg For Investment On The Construction Of The House. 4. That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Rejecting The Report Of The Valuer In Support Of The Construction Of The House For Claim Of Exemption U/S. 54 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Saif Ali, Adv. (Through VC) &For Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 148Section 148ASection 148A(1)(d)Section 250Section 54

documentary in support of claim of deduction u/s. 54 of the Act, added an amount of Rs. 24,42,775/- under the head Long Term Capital Gain for the year under consideration. In appeal, Ld. CIT(A) affirmed the action of the AO. 3. Against the aforesaid order

Sumita Singhal, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-17(4), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3836/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalsumita Singhal Income Tax Officer, 149, Tarun Enclave, Ward-17(4), Pitampura, New Delhi-110034. Vs. New Delhi. Pan:Acops9544H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri R.R. Singla, Ca Department By Shri Narpat Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 23.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 10.09.2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-6, Delhi [ ‘Cit(A)’ In Short] In Appeal No. Cit(A)-Delhi-6/10307/2017-18 Dated 14.03.2018 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) For Assessment Year 2017-18 Arising Out Of The Order Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Dated 27.12.2017. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Is An Individual & Filed Her Return Of Income On 30.01.2016 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.5,05,360/- With Ito Ward-40(1), Delhi. Notice U/S 143(2) Was Issued On 29.07.2016 By The Same Assessing Officer. Thereafter, Another Notice Issued U/S 143(2) Was Issued On 08.09.2016 By The Ito, Ward-71(2), New Delhi. On 04.09.2017 The Notice U/S 143(2) Was Issued By Ito, Ward No.17(4), New Delhi. The Assessment Was Completed U/S 143(3) By The Ito, Ward-17(4), Wherein The Total Income Of The Assessee Was Assessed At Rs.49,65,760/- After Making Additions Of Rs.42,48,000/- By Holding The Long Term Capital Gain As Bogus & Further Addition Of Rs.2,12,400/- Was Made As Unexplained Expenditure

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

wherein the total income of the assessee was assessed at Rs.49,65,760/- after making additions of Rs.42,48,000/- by holding the long term capital gain as bogus and further addition of Rs.2,12,400/- was made as unexplained expenditure 2 IT No.3836/Del/2019 Sumita Singhal vs. ITO for obtaining