← 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

Murali Mohan Reddy Bonthu, Vijayawada vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Vijayawada

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 265/VIZ/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam04 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.265/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2013-14) Murali Mohan Reddy Bonthu V. Income Tax Officer – Ward – 3(1) 14/4, Flat No. 503 Cr Building, 1St Floor Annex Sree Satya Sai Towers M.G. Road, Vijayawada – 522002 Andhra Pradesh Main Road Nunna Andhra Pradesh - 521212 [Pan:Aiopb5077E] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Shri I. Kama Sastry, Ca राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr.Ar

Section 112Section 139(4)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 149(1)(b)Section 234ASection 54FSection 69A

response to the notice, assessee filed return of income declaring total income at Rs.2,34,400/- on 21.02.2022 by claiming exemption for long term capital gains under section 54F of the Act. Subsequently, notices under section 142(1) of the Act were issued on various dates requiring the assessee ... Assessment Centre is not justified in taxing the income at 30% as against 20% provided for under section 112 in the case of long term capital gains. 5. The Assessment Unit, National Faceless Assessment Centre is not justified in levying interest under section 234A for the period

Rama Rani, Chandigarh vs. DCIT, Circle 1(1), Chandigarh

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 933/CHANDI/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No. 933/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Ms. Rama Rani Dcit बनाम/ Vs. H. No 1058, Popular Enclave Circle 1(1), Sector 48-B, Chandigarh Chandigarh. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aerpr-2072-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Ravinder Krishan (Advocate)– Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Rajat Kumar Kureel (Cit) – Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 30-06-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 04-07-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. By Way Of This Appeal, The Assessee Assails Invocation Of Revisionary Jurisdiction U/S 263 By Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Chandigarh-1 (Pr.Cit) For Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16 Vide Impugned Order Dated 14-03-2024 Proposing Revision Of Assessment As Framed By Ld. Ao U/S.147 Of The Act On 29-03-2022. The Registry Has Noted Delay Of 98 Days In The Appeal, The Condonation Of Which Has Been Sought By Ld. Ar On The Strength Of Condonation Petition Which Is Accompanied By An Affidavit Of The Assessee. It Has Been Stated That The Assessee Was Not In India When

For Appellant: Sh. Ravinder Krishan (Advocate)– Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Rajat Kumar Kureel (CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 54F

returned income of Rs.104.40 Lacs was again accepted in reassessment proceedings. The perusal of computation of income would show that the assessee declared Long Term Capital Gains of Rs.184.73 Lacs against which the assessee claimed deduction u/s 54F for Rs.85.77 Lacs for the reason that it made investment in house

Bipinbhai Chhaganbhai Jodhani, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 3(3)(1), Surat

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

ITA 919/SRT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat03 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.919/Srt/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Bipinbhai Chhaganbhai The Ito बनाम/ Jodhani Ward-3(3)(1) 21, Swetrajhans Society Surat – 395 001 V/S. Khodiyar Nagar Road Varachha Road Surat – 395 006 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Addpj 9297 Q (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mehul Patel, Ar Revenue By : Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 07/04/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 03/07/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Dated 28/06/2024 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-2018. Bipinbhai Chhaganbhai Jodhani Vs. Ito Asst. Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Patel, ARFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr.DR
Section 24Section 24bSection 250Section 48

confirming the disallowance of claim of Indexed cost of Improvement of Rs.30,01,463/- made u/s 48 of the Act, while computing the Long Term Capital Gains. (2) That on facts, in law, and on evidence on record, it ought to have been held that the appellant has not claimed