← 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

M/S. Exim Scrips Dealers Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 5(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 756/KOL/2025[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Aug 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.756/Kol/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2014-2015) M/S Exim Scrips Dealers Pvt. Ltd. Vs Ito Ward-5(1), Kolkata 412, Mukti Chambers, 4Th Floor, 4, Clive Row, Kolkata-700001 Pan No. : Aaace 6906 E (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Siddharth Parekh, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Somnath Das Biswas, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 06/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 06/08/2025 आदेश / O R D E R This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 28.03.2025 Passed By The Ld. Addl./Jcit(A)-1, Bengaluru For The Assessment Year 2014-2015 2. Shri Siddharth Parekh, Ld. Ar Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Somnath Das Biswas, Ld.Sr. Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. 3. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That The Only Issue In Assessee’S Appeal Was Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) In Confirming The Addition Made By The Ao In Respect Of The Disallowance Of Expenditure Earned In Respect Of Exempt Income By Applying The Provisions Of Rule 8D Read With The Provisions Of Section 14A Of The Act. It Was The Submission That The There Was No Satisfaction Recorded For The Purpose Of Invoking The Provisions Of Section 14A Of The Act. It Was The Submission That On Identical Circumstances The Coordinate Bench Of This Tribunal In Assessee'S Own

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Parekh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Somnath Das Biswas, Sr. DR
Section 10(34)Section 10(38)Section 14ASection 14A(2)

yard stick the claim of having incurred expenditure of Rs. 8,050/- in relation to dividend income of Rs. 48,04,057/- and “Long Term Capital Gain” Rs. 3,24,18,990/- appears to be quite meagre. I am, therefore, 3 satisfied that the claim of expenditure incurred and shown

Jai Shankar Maheshwari, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-31, New Delhi, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1183/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2021-22] Shri Jai Shankar Vs Dcit, Maheshwari, B-14, 2Nd Floor, Central Circle-31, Preet Vihar, Delhi-110092. New Delhi Pan-Aaupm3199E Appellant Respondent Appellant By Dr.Rakesh Gupta, Adv. Respondent By Shri Om Parakash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 14.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 06.08.2025 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 31.01.2024 Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A)-30, New Delhi [“Ld.Cit(A)”] In Appeal No.10146/2020-21 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising From The Assessment Order Dated 30.12.2022 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. Brief Fact Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual, Having Income From Salary & Interest Income & Filed His Return Of Income On 10.01.2022, Declaring Income Of Inr 5,46,580/-. The Assessment Was Selected For Scrutiny By Way Of Issue Of Notice On 30.06.2022 & After Considering The Submissions Of The Assessee & Also Placing Reliance On The Material Found During The Course Of Search Carried Out On M/S. Jainco Ltd. On 06.01.2021, An Addition Of Inr 62,00,000/- Is Made To The Total Income Of The Assessee By Holding That The Same As Undisclosed Sales Consideration Received In Addition To The Agreed Consideration Received On The Sale Of 50% Of Shares In The Property At G-174, 2Nd Floor, Preet Vihar, New Delhi-110092. 3. Against This Order, An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Before Ld.Cit(A) Wherein The Assessee Has Challenged The Assessment Order On Merits Of The Additions Which Has Been Dismissed By The Ld.Cit(A) In Terms Of Impugned Order Dated 31.01.2024. 4. Aggrieved By The Said Order, The Assessee Is In Appeal Before Tribunal Wherein Following Grounds Of Appeal Are Taken:-

Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 250Section 54

passed u/s 143(3) of the Act on 30.12.2022 making addition of Rs. 62,00,000/- u/s 45 of the Act as long term capital gain after making necessary inquiries. 11. The assessment order in the instant case was passed u/s 143(3) of the Act instead