← 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. Medical Solutions (India) Private Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO Circle (2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1562/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 May 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosainmedical Solutions (Ind) Pvt Vs. Ito, Circle 2(2)(1) Ltd., Room No. 545, Aayakar 312, Classic Centre, C Wing, Bhawan, Mk Road, Mahal Indl Estate, Off, Mumbai – 400020 Mahakali Caves Road, Andheri E, Mumbai – 400093 Pan/Gir No. Aaccm4522E (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Sameer G. Dalal Revenue By Shri Avinash Karpe, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 30.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 01.05.2025 आदेश / Order Per Sandeep Gosain, Jm: The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue Challenging The Impugned Order 19.02.2024 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’), By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For The Assessment Year 2021-22. 2. The Only Ground Raised By The Assessee Relates To Challenging The Order Of Denial Of Adjustment Made By The 2 M/S. Medical Solutions (Ind) Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 32Section 32(2)Section 72Section 73

order of denial of adjustment made by the 2 M/s. Medical Solutions (Ind) Pvt Ltd., Mumbai assessee of unabsorbed depreciations against the long term capital gain earned during the year. 3. In this regard, I have heard the counsels for both the parties, Perused the material placed on record, judgments ... unabsorbed depreciation of Rs 20,69,539/-from Assessment Year: 2019-2020, therefore, adjusted unabsorbed depreciation against the long term capital gain earned during the year amounting to Rs 3,58,168/-, accordingly declared income of Rs Nil. 5. The said adjustment was disallowed vide intimation issued

Rajendra, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle 19(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 759/MUM/2025[AACPR4430M]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2025

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara(Physical Hearing) बनाम Rajendra, Dcit Circle 19(3), Mumbai 317, Prasad Chamber, Opera House, Vs Piramal Chambers, Charni Road, Mumbai – 400004. Lalbaug, Parel, Pan No. Aacpr 4430 M Mumbai-400012. अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्रत्यर्थी /Respondent ननर्ाारितीकीओिसे /Assessee By Ms. Ruby Srivastava & Shri Bharat Kumar Ar’S िाजस्वकीओिसे /Revenue By Shri Anil Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Institution Of Appeal 03.02.2025 27.02.2025 सुनवाईकीतािीख/Date Of Hearing उद्घोषणाकीतािीख/Date Of 30.04.2025 Pronouncement Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act

Section 132(4)Section 143(1)Section 148Section 254(1)Section 68Section 69C

search action it was revealed that said group was indulging in providing accommodation entry in the form of bogus long term capital gain /short term capital loss or business loss to various beneficiaries. The said group was involved in trade of scripts of shares of seven companies. The name ... proved that Naresh Jain and his group was providing accommodation entry in the form of 9 Rajendra (AY 2012-13) bogus long term capital gain /short term capital loss or business loss to various beneficiaries. The said group was involved in trade of scripts of shares of seven companies