← 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

Shri Kishore Mohanlal Dingra, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Cir-41(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2257/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सुं./Ita No.2257/Mum/2024 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Shri Kishore V/S. Deputy Director Of Income Mohanlal Dingra बिाम Tax Circle 41(1)(1), Mumbai 105, Dosti Ambrosia, The Of Dcit, Circle 4(1)(1), S.M. Road, Mumbai Kautilya Bhavan, Room No. 400037 Kb/614, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai 400051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Atxpd4896P Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवादी निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee By: Shri Nimish Thar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Shri. Hemanshu Joshi, Sr Dr

For Appellant: Shri Nimish TharFor Respondent: Shri. Hemanshu Joshi, SR DR
Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 234BSection 250Section 44A

NFAC has erred in law & on facts in upholding the Learned AO's action of addition of Rs.6,94,853/-under the head Long term capital gain. 4) The Learned NFAC has erred in law & on facts in upholding the Learned AO's action of addition of Rs.52,361/- under ... cancelled the booking in FY 2015-16 and got total consideration of Rs. 40 lacs from the builder. Accordingly, Ld. AO computed the long-term capital gain arising out of these transactions at Rs. 6,94,853/-. (iv) Finally, Ld. AO made another addition of Rs. 52,361/- being difference

Bhaskardev Mukherjee, Durgapur vs. I.T.O., Ward - 1(1), Durgapur

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

ITA 1882/KOL/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Aug 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.1882/Kol/2024 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2015-2016) Bhaskardev Mukherjee, Vs Ito, Ward-1(1), Durgapur Nadiha, Durgapur, Burdwan-713218 Pan No. : Allpm 4097 M (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Somnath Das Biswas, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 07/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 07/08/2025 आदेश / O R D E R This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 08.08.2024 Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2015-2016. 2. Shri Somnath Choudhury, Ld.Ar Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee & Shri Somnath Das Biswas, Ld. Sr. Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. 3. It Was The Submission Of The Ld.Ar That In The Course Of Assessment The Ao Has Made The Additions Representing 50C Value In Respect Of Two Immovable Properties Sold By The Assessee. It Was The Submission That The Assessee Had Requested For Valuation Of The Said Properties. It Was The Submission That Before Completion Of The Assessment, The Valuation Was Not Received. It Was The Submission That The Valuation Has Not Been Received From The Dvo On 20.01.2025. The Valuation Report Along With Calculation As Submitted By The Ld. Ar Is As Under :-

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Somnath Das Biswas, Sr. DR

specifically mentioned that the said property was under municipality area. It was the submission that both the transactions were liable to be long term capital gain. It was fairly agreed by the ld. Sr. DR that the DVO's report has to be considered by the Assessing Officer by adopting ... decimals of land. It has also been argued by the ld. AR that the second property is liable for determining the long term capital gain. It is also noticed that the DVO’s report is dated 20.01.2025 whereas the assessment order is dated 15.03.2023 and the order

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Income Tax Office vs. Supreme Polymers Private Limited, Jaipur

In the results the appeal of the

ITA 189/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 189/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2015-16 DCIT, Central Circle-03, Jaipur बनाम Vs. Supreme Polymers Pvt. Ltd. 137-138, Industrial Area, Jhotwara, Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AACCS 5773 P अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by: Shri Gaurav Nahata, CA राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by : Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT, Sr. DR सुनवाई की ता

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Nahata, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

search as on 23-12-2014 but no incriminating material was found from his premises. However, the AO made the addition of bogus long term capital gain based on material found from the office premises of the group companies but panchanama drawn on such office premises does not include ... found that he was engaged in providing accommodation entries of share capital, share premium, share application money, unsecured loans, long term capital gains, short term capital gains etc. in lieu of cash received by him and that it had also provided one-time entry of certain amount towards share application