“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

Zalavadiya Kalubhai Mohanbhai, HUF, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 806/AHD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Accountannt Member Assessment Year 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Abhijit, Sr. D.R

Section 10(38)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

NFAC erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 3,71,94,167/- in terms of Long-term capital gain taken by appellant as bogus. The ld. CIT(A)-NFAC has disposed-off of this ground without considering appellant's submission. Therefore, it is prayed that addition of LTCG as unexplained ... Assessing Officer in the assessment order. The Assessing Officer mentioned that the assessee filed ITR for assessment year 2015-16 and claimed long term capital gain as exempt u/s. 10(38) of the Act. The case of the assessee was reopened after recording the reason for reopening

Sanjay Kaushalendra Jha, Thane vs. Ward 4(4), Thane

In the result, the appeal of the assesse bearing ITA No

ITA 4660/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Anikesh Banerjeesanjay Kaushalendra Jha Vs Income-Tax Officer, Wartd-4(4), Building No.03, Flat No.201, Thane, Tulsidham Trinity Chs Ltd, Qureshi Mansion, Gokhale Road, Thane West, Thane-400 610 Thane Pan: Agdpj8743Q Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Riddhisha Jain (virtually present)For Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik (SR DR)

Section 147Section 148Section 250

reopened under section 148 of the Act. Finally, the addition was made amount to Rs.40,85,120/- related to profit earned from ‘Long Term Capital Gain’ (in short, LTCG). The aggrieved assesse filed appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) with a delay of 138 days. The Ld.AR stated that the reason

Zubin Jehanbux Gandevia, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Int Tax Ward 2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 1789/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Sept 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Gunjan KakkadFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar (SR DR)

Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 5(2)

financial year. During the assessment proceedings, before finalization of draft assessment order, the assesse claimed that the assessee wrongly declared the non taxable long term capital gain (LTCG) and short-term capital gain (STCG) in the return of income and paid the tax. The assesse also wrongly offered dividend income ... India-Singapore DTAA At the time of filing the income tax return, the Assessee has erroneously disclosed certain income Le long-term capital gain and short-term capital gain at the time of filling the income-tax return for AY 2022-23, which was not taxable in India in line

Baldeep Singh, Chandigarh vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5(1), Chandigarh

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 199/CHANDI/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 199/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Baldeep Singh, The Acit, C/O Tej Mohan Singh, बनाम Circle 5(1), Advocate Chandigarh Vs. #527, Sector 10-D. Chandigarh "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Adyps3636F अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent ( Physical Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Sh. Tej Mohan Singh, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Sh. Vivek Varadhan, Addl. Cit, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 03.07.2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 03.09.2025 आदेश/Order Per Krinwant Sahay, Am: Appeal In This Case Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 10.01.2025 Of Addl./Jcit(A)-1. Nagpur For The A.Y. 2012-13. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under: -

For Appellant: Sh. Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Vivek Varadhan, Addl. CIT, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

then a return in response to notice u/s 148, by declaring the same income under the heads business, short term capital gains, long term capital gains and other sources Copy of Computation of Income already filed, is enclosed herewith. 199-Chd-2025 Baldeep Singh, Chandigarh 4 2. Thereafter a notice ... search operation on one Shri Naresh Jain and his associates that there were some entry providers who were providing entries of bogus long term capital gains, bogus short term loss and bogus business loss through manipulation of stock prices of the stock exchanges. The assessing officer, on the basis

ACIT, Central Circle - 2(1), Ahmedabad vs. Deepak Jyotiprasad Chiripal, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 566/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Dhrunal Bhatt, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit, Sr. D.R

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 2(14)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 63

been converted into non- agricultural purposes by the buyer of the land. In such circumstances, the assessee cannot be held to pay long term capital gain as held in the case of PCIT vs. Hinaben Bhadresh Mehta (2018) 96 taxman.com 164 (Guj). The decision in the case of Vedprakash Devkinandan

Punit Ashokkumar Thakkar, Vadodara vs. I.T.O. Ward 3(1)(2), Vadodara

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

ITA 250/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI SANJAY GARG (Judicial Member), SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Chirag Raval, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Kakoli Uttam Ghosh, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 250

that the assessee had sold the land for a consideration of Rs.50,73,737/-but had declared consideration of Rs.5,05,050/- and long term capital gain thereon, of Rs.1,23,388/-. In the absence of any co-operation from the assessee, the AO treated the consideration for the land ... Rs.1,23,388/-, the AO made addition of the balance amount of Rs.45,68,687/- to the income of the assessee as long term capital gain. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee pointed out that the property so sold by the assessee was owned by 10 co-owners including

Income Tax Officer Ward-3(3)(2), Ahmedabad vs. Manthan Shyam Ganatra, Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2032/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member), SHRI T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Mishra, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Maloo, AR

Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 68

response to which, the assessee filed its return of income declaring total income of Rs. 16,84,843/-. This total income included long term capital gain of 38,20,619/- and short term capital loss of Rs. 21,35,776/-. In response to the query of the AO relating

DCIT., (International Taxation)-1, Hyderabad vs. Syama Reddy Mali Reddy, Hyderabad

ITA 366/HYD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 54Section 54F

vide his original order of assessment passed under Section 143(3) r.w Section 144C(3) of the Act, dated 30.11.2021, redetermined the “Long-Term Capital Gains” (“LTCG") disclosed by the assessee on sale of 25 plots situated at Medipally, Uppal, Hyderabad, and 4 plots at Bhongir District, at Rs.4 ... completed within two years which was the period stipulated and specified in Section 54 of the Act. He, accordingly, computed the long term capital gain, after granting benefit of indexation on cost of acquisition and cost of improvement, at Rs.45,36,273/-. While examining the question of capital gains

Babu Lal Saini, Jaipur vs. ITO WD 1(1), Jpr, Jaipur

ITA 749/JPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. S. B. Natani, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 250Section 54

purchase of plot (b) of Rs. 4,77,000/- contributed by the wife of assessee (c) of Rs, 17,82,470/- being long term Capital gain was unjustified. 4. That the assessee craves permission to add, alter, amend or delete any ground or grounds of appeal on or before

Ismail Abdulaziz Lakhani, Bhavnagar vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Bhavnagar

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 803/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad02 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: the same were transferred through registered broker, on the floor of the recognized stock exchange, after suffering Security Transaction Tax and ultimately settled through proper banking channel) as unaccounted income under Section 68 of the Act amounting to Rs.1,51,12,000/-.

For Appellant: Shri Sarju Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sudhakar Verma, Sr. DR

Section 10(38)Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68Section 69C

Rs.1,51,12,000/-. The assessee returned capital gain of Rs.1,31,25,238/- on the same and treating it to be long term capital gain fulfilling all the conditions specified u/s.10(38) of the Act, the entire capital gain was treated as exempt. The AO, however, came in possession ... company M/s. KDJ Holidayscape and Resort Limited was of no worth but had only engaged in providing bogus accommodation entries of long term capital gain or loss to various entities. This information was revealed during search and seizure action u/s.132 of the Act conducted in the case of Jatia Group

Rajnikant Raichand Shah, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-1(3)(1), Ahmedabad

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1326/AHD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad02 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri M K Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajenkumar M Vasavda, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 147Section 54ESection 54F

cost of acquisition of Rs. 50,895/- and deduction of Rs. 41,00,000/- u/s. 54F of the Act made while computing the Long Term Capital Gains. (4) The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend any ground of appeal.” 4. The brief facts of the case are that ... Assessing Officer held that the entire amount of Rs. 40,32,000/- received from the transfer of “tenancy rights” was taxable as long-term capital gain. 5. In appeal before us CIT(Appeals), the assessee reiterated that the reopening of the assessment was based on factually incorrect grounds, and submitted

Farheez Eruch Aga, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-9(1), Pune

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

ITA 1870/PUN/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune02 Sept 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Kishor PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde

Section 133(6)

brokerage paid details, copies of bank account statements, PPF account statement, gift taken or given, agricultural 2 income/expenses, brokers invoice, ledger of brokers, long term capital gain working, LTCG cost of acquisition etc. 3. During the course of assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee has declared long ... facts in sustaining the addition of Rs.35,00,655/- on account of appellant's claim of commission and brokerage against long term capital gain by applying provisions of u/s 37 of ITA, 1961 without appreciating fact that, appellant has claimed the said expenditure

Pradeep Jeyavelu, Tiruvallur vs. ITO, Ward-1, Tiruvallur

ITA 1626/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1626/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 Pradeep Jeyavelu, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 2/697 Balaji Nagar Thiruyur Ward 1, Kuppam, Sevvapettai, Tiruvallur. Tiruvallur 602 025. [Pan:Bblpj4017P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri R.S. Hithesh, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. V. Aswathy, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 01.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03.09.2025 आदेश /O R D E R This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 22.04.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The Assessee Raised 9 Grounds Of Appeal Amongst Which, The Only Issue Emanates For Consideration As To Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified In Confirming The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer On Account Of Long Term Capital Gain.

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Hithesh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. V. Aswathy, JCIT

Section 148Section 54

consideration as to whether the ld. CIT(A) is justified in confirming the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of long term capital gain. 2 I.T.A. No.1626/Chny/25 3. At the outset, it is noted that the assessee is an individual, filed return of income on 28.03.2023 declaring total ... sale proceeds and the said 50% share cannot be clubbed in the accounts of 4 I.T.A. No.1626/Chny/25 the assessee for determining long term capital gain. He prayed to allow the ground in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer. 6. The ld. DR Ms. V. Aswathy, JCIT submits that

Income Tax Officer-27(3)(1) Mumbai, Vashi vs. Sachin Velji Shah, Mumbai

Appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1938/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Swapnil Choudhary, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala, AR

Section 10(38)Section 132(4)Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68Section 69C

Surabhi Chemicals and Investments Limited was suspicious penny stock and the price of this share was rigged artificially to provide bogus entries of long term capital gain to the beneficiaries and the assessee being one of the beneficiaries of the same? 4. Ground :4 iv) Whether on the facts ... statutory notices were duly served on the assessee. During the course of assessment the AO noticed that the assessee has declared Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) on sale of share of the scrip M/s Surabhi Chemicals and Investments Ltd. 3 ITA 1938/Mum/2023 Sachin Velji Shah which is claimed as exempt

Pritiben Jagdishbhai Mehta, Rajkot vs. The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Rajkot

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 333/RJT/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot01 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Dattani, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Pungalia, Ld. CIT(DR)

Section 147Section 263

transaction and the requirements stated ITA No.333 /RJT/2023 Pritiben J. Mehta under the Act to claim the capital gain, as exempt Long Term Capital Gain under section 10(38) of the Act. The assessing officer, nowhere, in the assessment order, stated that these documentary evidences, submitted by the assessee ... evidence which could be said to be incriminating material against the assessee to show that assessee had availed of accommodation entry of bogus long-term capital gain. 20. The Hon`ble, jurisdictional Gujarat High Court in the case of Mamta Rajivkumar Agarwal, Tax Appeal No.408 of 2023, dated 11.09.2023 held

Amardeep Sandhu, Chandigarh vs. Income Tax Officer, Chandigarh

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 92/CHANDI/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh01 Sept 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 92/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2023-24 Shri Amardeep Sandhu, Vs The Ito, Jagjit Singh Anil Batra, Chandigarh. Sco 45, 2Nd Floor, Sector 41D, Chandigarh. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Cheps4310N अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Anil Batra, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. Ld. Cit Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 29.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 01.09.2025 Physical Hearing

For Appellant: Shri Anil Batra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. ld. CIT Sr.DR

Section 143(1)Section 195

Para 2. Accordingly Income Tax Return was filed vide Acknowledgment no 559929440191223 dated 19-12-2023 declaring net taxable income inclusive of Long Term capital gain at Rs. 3,71,29,847/- and sought of refund of Rs. 37,88,470/- Para 3. However, the assessee received intimation

Natesan Ekambaram, Chennai vs. DCIT Central Circle 1(2), Chennai

In the result, the ground of appeal raised by the assessee on this issue stands allowed

ITA 2873/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.:2873/Chny/2024 धनिाारणिर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Natesan Ekambaram, Dcit, 1/115, Bajanai Kovil Vs. Central Circle -1(2), Street, Chennai. Perumbakkam, Medavakkam Post, Chennai – 601 302 [Pan:Ackpe-6757-C] (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) (अपीलाथी/Appellant) अपीलाथीकीओरसे/Appellant By : Mr.K.Vishwa Padmanabhan, Ca. प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Mr.C.Sivakumar , Addl.Cit.

For Appellant: Mr.K.Vishwa Padmanabhan, CAFor Respondent: Mr.C.Sivakumar , Addl.CIT

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 2(14)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 54

capital asset" within the meaning of the Act and, therefore, was liable to capital gains taxation. On that basis, the AO computed the long-term capital gains at Rs.2,45,19,108/-, by adopting the entire receipt including the advance for the balance land as sale consideration at Rs.2 ... sale consideration of Rs.2,50,00,000/-. Hence, the same is treated as sale consideration received for the above-mentioned property and the Long-Term capital gain is worked out as under. Sale consideration received = Rs.2,50,00,000/- Less: Indexed cost (238260*220/109)=Rs.4,80,892/- Long term capital

Simla Chemicals Pvt Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-22(2), Delhi

ITA 1913/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahmanita No. 1913/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2018-19 Simla Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. Vs Dcit, A-76, Phase-1, Naraina Industrial Circle-22(2), Area, New Delhi-110028 New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacs0849J Assessee By : Sh. K. Sampath, Adv. & Sh. V. Rajkumar, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Mahesh Kumar Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 01.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 01.09.2025 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2018-19, Arises Against The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1074119604(1) Dated 06.03.2025, In Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: Sh. K. Sampath, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Mahesh Kumar CIT-DR

Section 143(3)

substantive issue between the parties herein, it emerges that the assessee/appellant is aggrieved against both the learned lower authorities’ action adding the alleged long term capital gains of Rs.3,99,18,000/- in it’s hands as derived from sale of property, in assessment order 2 Simla Chemicals

Gangadhar, Aliagrh vs. Income Tax Officer, Aligarh

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 199/AGR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Agra29 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250

return of income in response thereof. Learned Assessing Officer, thus carried out ‘best judgment assessment’ u/s. 144 of the Act by computing long term capital gain on sale of immovable property and assessed total income at Rs.78,61,690/-. 4. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before ld. CIT(Appeals

Hemant Kumar Tiwari, Tiruppur vs. PCIT, Coimbatore

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

ITA 1404/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1404/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 Hemant Kumar Tiwari, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 6, Vinayagapuram 1St Street, Circle 1, 12, Royapuram Main Road, Tiruppur. Tiruppur 641 601. [Pan:Abdpt4540J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Anandd Babunath, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 28.08.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29.08.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 21.06.2023 Passed By The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, Coimbatore For The Assessment Year 2013-14 Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act” In Short).

For Appellant: Shri Anandd Babunath, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT

Section 10(38)Section 139Section 139(1)Section 144Section 147Section 263

equity shares of CCL International Limited in Bombay Stock Exchange through my Broker M/s. Hem Securities Limited, and offered the Gains as Long term capital Gains and claimed exemption u/s. 10(38) of the IT Act, 1961. The same was also confirmed by the Ld. Assessing Officer who passed