← 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

Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (in-Situ), Kolkata vs. Alosha Marketing Pvt Ltd, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1594/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George Mathanjcit(In-Situ), Circle-4(1), Vs M/S Alosha Marketing Pvt. Ltd. Kolkata 62A, Hazra Road, Kolkata Pan No. :Aacca 1930 G (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri S.B.Chakraborthy, Sr. Dr नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Ms. Priyanka Salarpuria, Ar सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 01/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 01.07.2025 आदेश / O R D E R This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 29.01.2024 Passed For The Assessment Year 2012-2013. 2. Shri S.B.Chakraborthy, Ld.Sr. Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue & Ms. Priyanka Salalpuria, Ld. Ar Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. 3. The Appeal Of The Revenue Is Delayed By 117 Days. In This Regard The Revenue Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Stating Sufficient Reasons For Delay Which Are Plausible & Not Found To Be False. Thus, The Delay Of 117 Days In Filing The Present Appeal By The Revenue Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Admitted For Hearing. 4. The Revenue In Its Appeal Has Raised The Following Grounds :- 1. The Delay In Filing Appeal Before The Hon'Ble Itat Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Is Occurred Due To Large Number Of Time Barring Cases U/S 148A Of The I.T.Act 1961 & System Problem Which May Kindly Be Condoned. 2. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A). Nfac Has Erred In Deleting The Addition

For Appellant: Ms. Priyanka Salarpuria, ARFor Respondent: Shri S.B.Chakraborthy, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 68

profit of Rs. 5,67,002/-. In effect, the assessee submitted that there was no claim of long term capital gain or short term capital loss in the return of income. On perusal of records and income computation, it is found that there was no LTCG or STCL on sale

Annu Anil Agrawal, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle 4(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5473/MUM/2024[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jul 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankarआयकर अपील सुं./Ita No. 5473/Mum/2024 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2011-12) Annu Anil Agrawal V/S. Acit Cc 4(3), Mumbai Due C-3401/3402 Oberoi बिाम To Restructuring Current Esquire, Mohan Gokhale Jurisdiction Of Appellant Road, Off W. E. Highway, Lies With Acit 41(4)(1), Oberoi Garden City, Mumbai Goregaon East, Mumbai- Kautilya Bhawan, Bkc, 400063 Bandra (E), Mumbai- 400051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Admpa0248F Appellant/अपीलार्थी Respondent/प्रनिवादी ..

For Appellant: Shri Suchek Anchaliya, Ms. RubyFor Respondent: Shri Aditya Rai
Section 10(38)Section 250Section 68Section 69

shares of M/s. JMD Telefilms Ltd. and 368 shares of Adani Power Ltd., and as a result of which the assessee earned long-term capital gain (LTCG) of Rs. 6,59,65,834/-, which have been claimed as exempt income u/s 10(38) of the Act in her return ... made by the A.R. of the assessee during the course of the assessment proceedings for justification of assessee appellant claim with respect to Long Term Capital Gain from the sales of Shares of M/s. JMD Telefilms Limited. 5. Appellant contends that, Assessing Officer and Appellate Authority has outrightly rejected appellant

Harcharan Singh, Kanpur vs. Income Tax Officer-2(5), Kanpur

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

ITA 201/LKW/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudharyआयकर अपील सं/ Ita No.201/Lkw/2022 ननिाारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2013-14 Harcharan Singh V. Ito-2(5) 118/208, Kaushalpuri, Kanpur- Kanpur 208012. Pan:Anxps2189N अपीलार्थी/(Appellant) प्रत्यर्थी/(Respondent) अपीलार्थी कक और से/Appellant By: None प्रत्यर्थी कक और से /Respondent By: Shri Deepak Yadav, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई कक तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 10 06 2025 घोर्णा कक तारीख/ Date Of 30 06 2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Deepak Yadav, CIT(DR)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 50C

same (at the time of sale); 5. the authorities below have erred in law and on facts in computing/upholding the computation of Long Term Capital Gain at Rs.1,56,21,620/- by treating the sale plots of land as sale of capital asset simpliciter (instead of treating the same ... accordingly in later years. However the assessee was unable to furnish any supporting evidences in support of his submission. In view of above, Long Term Capital Gain in the hands of the assessee is computed as below: Sale Consideration of property (as per stamp value) (as per sale deed dated