“long term capital gains”

Capital GainsSection 2(29A)Section 2(29A)2,289 judgments

RAMESHKUMAR KARSANBHAI PATEL,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 2(3)(5), SURAT

Accordingly the estimated addition made of Rs.35,166/-[0.5% of 70,33,182/-] by the AC invoking provision of section 69C of the I.T Act stand deleted. Thus this ground is allowed

ITA 669/SRT/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat09 Apr 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

Section 10(38)Section 115Section 115BSection 250Section 68Section 69C

Rs.6,78,620/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS on the issue of ‘suspicious sale transaction in shares and exempt Long Term Capital Gains (penny stock) shown in return. During the year under consideration, the assessee earned Long Term Capital Gain of Rs.70,33,182/- on sale ... Held, yes Assessee made investments in shares of company, 'S' During relevant assessment year, assessee sold said shares and claimed exemption on long term capital gains Assessing Officer received information from Investigation Wing that prices of some shares of penny stock companies which included company, 'S' were artificially rigged

BHAWNA KAPOOR,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-62(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 632/DEL/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Apr 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarsmt. Bhawna Kapoor Vs. Acit Prop M/S Manish Circle 62(1) Handicraft 1196, Main Delhi Bazar, Paharganj, New Delhi 110055 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Adxpk 3853 F Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Ramesh Chander, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR

Section 10(38)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 68Section 69A

income from other sources at Rs. 6,709/-. In computation of income, an amount of Rs. 33,97,009/- was shown as long term capital gain and claimed as exempt u/s 10(38) of the Act. The Directorate of Investigation, Kolkata identified 84 listed penny stock companies, shares of which ... entry operators. The P a g e | 3 Bhawna Kapoor (AY 2014-15) assessee is one of the beneficiaries who has obtained long term capital gains by way of trading the shares of M/s Cressanda Solutions Limited. 3. On completion of proceedings Ld. AO, vide order dated 28.12.2016 made addition

GYAN PRAKASH GUPTA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD-10(4), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 6271/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Apr 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarlate Gyan Prakash Gupta Vs. Ito Through Legal Heir Raj Ward 10(4) Kumari Gupta New Delhi Plot No.6 & 7, Defence Enclave, Laxmi Nagar, East Delhi 110092 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Adupg 2697 N Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Ajit Gandhi, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR

Section 10Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

relevant to AY 2015-16, assessee had been dealing in shares and claimed an amount of Rs.1,52,76,467/- as Long Term Capital Gain exemption u/s 10(38) of the Act. The gain had arisen from sale of 36,100 scrips of the company HPC Bioscience ... Investigation made by the Income- tax Department had revealed that the scrip of HPC Biosciences Limited are used to book bogus long term capital gain. 3. On completion of proceedings, Ld. AO vide order dated 08.12.2017 made addition of Rs.1

HARBHOL SINGH,SUNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD SUNAM

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 788/CHANDI/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Mar 2026AY 2012-2013

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Krinwant Sahay, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.788/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Harbhol Singh Ito H. No. 863, Village – Sheron, Aayakar Bhawan, Income Tax बनाम/ Vs. Suman Road, Sunam Officer, Ward Sunam, Sangrur District : Sangrur Punjab - 148028 Punjab - 148028 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Cssps-9948-F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Deepinder Singh (Advocate) ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Vivek Vardhan (Addl. Cit) Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26-02-2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 19-03-2026 : आदेश / O R D E R Krinwant Sahay () This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)/ Nfac, Delhi Dt. 16/05/2025 For The Assessment Year 2012-13. In The Present Appeal Assessee Raised The Following Grounds:

For Appellant: Sh. Deepinder Singh (Advocate)For Respondent: Sh. Vivek Vardhan (Addl. CIT) Ld. Sr. DR

Section 148

absence of evidence regarding the cost of acquisition or reinvestment, assessed the entire sale consideration of Rs. 65,25,000/- as Long Term Capital Gains. Additionally, the AO added Rs. 16,50,000/- as unexplained money under section 69A, noting that the cash deposits were made on 13.10.2011, whereas

ALLRUI SRINIVAS RAJU,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-12(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1923/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A. No.1923/Hyd/2025 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2016-17) Allrui Srinivas Raju, Vs. Dcit, Hyderabad. Circle-12(1), Pan: Ahepr6968H Hyderabad. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) करदाताका""त"न"ध"व/ : Shri K C Devdas, Ca Assessee Represented By राज"वका""त"न"ध"व/ : Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit-Dr Department Represented By सुनवाईसमा"तहोनेक""त"थ/ : 12/03/2026 Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख/ : 18/03/2026 Date Of Pronouncement Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Shri Allrui Srinivas Raju, (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 17/10/2025 For The A.Y.2016-17. Allrui Srinivas Raju Vs. Dcit 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Rounds Of Appeal:

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 2

Appellant under section 147 of the Income Tax Act 1961, on the basis of incomplete information and on the premise that long term capital gain is exigible to tax for the assessment year 2016-2017, in respect of development agreement entered into on 10th July 2015, registered as document No.5930/2015 ... based on the decision of Apex Court in the case of Balbir Singh Maini (251 Taxman 202) (2017) and therefore the assessment of long term capital gains at Rs.12,47,22,564/-, in the case of Appellant wholly unsustainable on the facts of the case. (iii) The development agreement

ANIKET SINGAL,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the above appeals are allowed

ITA 1146/CHANDI/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 939/Chd/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Shri Aniket Singal बनाम The DCIT 4, Amritashergil Marg, New Delhi- 110003 Central Circle-1 Chandigarh स्थायी लेखा सं./ PAN NO: CZCPS6126E अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 1145/Chd/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Smt. Aarti Singal बनाम The DCIT 53, Jor Bagh, New Delhi-110003 Central Circle-1 Chandigarh स

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar & Ms. Deepali Aggarwal, C.A’sFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

Section 10(38)Section 132Section 132(4)Section 250(6)Section 68Section 69C

account of alleged commission expenses allegedly paid by the appellant for arranging alleged entries in respect of long- term capital gain by invoking the provisions of Section 69C ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. That the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was further not justified to uphold the action ... Briefly, the facts of the case are that the assessee in her Income Tax Return, has claimed exempt income in the form of Long Term Capital Gain ("LTCG") of Rs. 27,12,80,840/- from sale of shares of M/s Meenakshi Enterprises, M/s Shantanu Sheorey Aquakult Ltd and M/s Sunstar

AARTI SINGAL,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the above appeals are allowed

ITA 1145/CHANDI/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 939/Chd/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Shri Aniket Singal बनाम The DCIT Central Circle-1 Chandigarh 4, Amritashergil Marg, New Delhi- 110003 स्थायी लेखा सं./ PAN NO: CZCPS6126E अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 1145/Chd/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Smt. Aarti Singal बनाम The DCIT Central Circle-1 Chandigarh 53, Jor Bagh, New Delhi-110003 स

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar & Ms. Deepali Aggarwal, C.A’sFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

Section 10(38)Section 132Section 132(4)Section 250(6)Section 68Section 69C

ACIT, CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD vs. USHODAYA ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

ITA 1782/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(2)

this unsecured loan, the assessee invested a sum in purchase of shares, which was shown as investment for the purpose of long term capital gains. The AO disallowed interest proportionate to the investment in shares, though no exempt income was earned during the year. The CIT(A) affirmed this ... year would or would not be taxable, may depend upon the nature of transaction entered into in the subsequent assessment year. For example, long term. capital gain on sale of shares is presently not taxable where security transaction tax has been paid, but a private sale of shares

ACIT, CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD vs. USHODAYA ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

ITA 1781/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

this unsecured loan,\nthe assessee invested a sum in purchase of shares, which was shown as\ninvestment for the purpose of long term capital gains. The AO disallowed\ninterest proportionate to the investment in shares, though no exempt income\nwas earned during the year. The CIT(A) affirmed this ... would or would not be taxable, may depend upon the nature of transaction entered into in the subsequent\n assessment year. For example, long term. capital gain on sale of shares is\npresently not taxable where security transaction tax has been paid, but a\nprivate sale of shares

SARIT GUPTA (HUF),NEW DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 43(6), NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6662/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: the NFAC who vide order dated 28-08-2025 dismissed the appeal. Being, aggrieved the order of the Ld. NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.

Section 10(38)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 149(1)Section 3

filed the return of income by declaring income of Rs.5,04,080/- on 16-02- 2016 for A.Y.2015-16. The assessee has admitted long term capital gains on sale of shares for an amount of Rs.1,83,76,703/- and claimed as exempted income ... Achal investment limited is one of the penny stock companies listed with Bombay Stock Exchange was artificially rigged to provide entry of bogus long term capital gain and it was found that the assessee is one of the beneficiaries who had sold shares of Achal investment limited for Rs.1

VANEET AGGARWAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-14(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2607/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 69ASection 69C

relevant information as called for.\n\n4.\nDuring the assessment proceedings, the Ld. AO observed that the assessee\nhas claimed exempt income on Long Term Capital Gain on sale of shares of M/s.\nHPC Biosciences Ltd. and claimed the exemption of Rs.41,80,283/-. By relying\nthe Investigation report ... addition u/s 69A of the Act to the extent of Rs.\n44,60,283/-. Further, the Ld. AO added 3% of the above long term capital gain as\ncommission paid to acquire the same u/s 69C of the Act.\n\n5. Aggrieved the above order, the assessee preferred an appeal

KURUZU RUSSELIAN,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCC-22(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the penalty levied u/s

ITA 2830/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. R. Subramanian, CAFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT

Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

said transactions. 5. In the return of income filed in response to the notice issued u/s.148 of the Act, the assessee had offered Long Term Capital Gains amounting to Rs.2,41,45,916/- after claiming indexed cost of acquisition of Rs.8,54,084/-. The assessee also furnished the relevant documentary

JAGAT SINGH,KHURJA vs. ITO, WARD 3(2), BULANDSHAHR

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

ITA 7428/DEL/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Hon’Ble & Mrs. Renu Jauhri, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Amit Jain, CIT (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 2(14)Section 250Section 50CSection 54F

highly objectionable. The Ld. AO could not justify an addition of Rs. 59,21,568/-towards the long-term capital gain. Land sold is an ancestral agriculture land and the same does not fall within the definition of capital asset ... Appeals). 4) That the Ld. AO ought to have considered the deduction u/s 54F, Construction of House Property, while calculating Long-Term Capital Gain on impugned Property sold. 5) That the Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in dismissing the appeal of the appellant on the grounds that no submission

DILIPKUMAR SOHANLAL MAHESHWARI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2), AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1662/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Kalpesh Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit, Sr. D.R

Section 10(35)Section 10(38)Section 115BSection 142Section 143Section 143(2)Section 68

name of proprietorship concern of M/s. Maruti Agencies during the year under consideration. The Assessing Officer observed that the assessee has shown long term capital gains and claimed exemptions u/s. 10(35) of the Act of Rs. 2,87,47,934/- for the year under consideration. The assessee reported that

ZARAH RAFIQUE MALIK,MUMBAI vs. ITO (INT TAX) WARD-3(2)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 5159/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang, Hon’Ble & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Hon’Blezarah Rafique Malik Income Tax Officer, (Int.Tax) B/1703, Vivarea Condominium, Ward- 3(2)(1), Mumbai Vs. Sane Guruji Marg, Jacob Circle, Mahalaxmi East Mumbai – 400 011 Pan : Adcpm8960G (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri K Gopal, Adv. & Shri Oom KandalkarFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 120(4)(b)Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 153(1)

deduction of the expenses u/s.48 of the Act as there was clear nexus of the said expenditure being incurred in relation to the long term capital gains arising on account of sale / transfer of shares. The ld. Counsel pointed that proportionate expenses has been allowed in respect of the other ... written submissions filed before the ld DRP and the contents thereof read as under: “3. Disallowance of IPO expense claimed against Long Term Capital Gain - Rs. 3,64,30,158/ The appellant has claimed IPO Expenses of Rs. 3,64,30,158/- against the long- term capital gain

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATION TAXATION) VADODARA, VADODARA vs. AHMED MAHOMED PANDOR, BHARUCH

ITA 1667/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha1.आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1667/Ahd/2025 – By Revenue 2.आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1602/Ahd/2025 – By Assessee (िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2016-17) 1. The Acit 1. Ahmed Mahomed बनाम (Internation Taxation) Pandor / Vadodara – 390 007 Moti Masjid Falia V/S. Jitali Ankleshwar Bharuch – 393 001 2. Ahmed Mahomed 2. The Acit Circle Pandor Int. Txn, Ankleshwar Vadodara – 390 007 Bharuch – 393 001 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Cwupp 2469 N (अपीलाथ(/ Appellant) (") यथ(/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rasesh Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Sher Singh, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/03/2026 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Are Cross-Appeals One By The Revenue & The Other 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 06/06/2025 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sher Singh, CIT-DR

Section 147Section 148Section 2(14)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 250

notice u/s 148 of the Act. In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition made by the AO on account of long term capital gains (LTCG) earned by the assessee on sale of land. 3. Being aggrieved by the said order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue

AHMED MAHOMED PANDOR,BHARUCH vs. ACIT, CIRCLE INT.TXN., VADODARA, BARODA

ITA 1602/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sher Singh, CIT-DR

Section 147Section 148Section 2(14)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 250

CHHAYA KETAN MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 33(1)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 6543/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

For Appellant: \nShri Nishit Gandhi, AdvFor Respondent: \nShri Virabhadra Mahajan (Sr. DR)

Section 10(38)Section 14Section 143(3)

without independently\nand impartially considering the submissions filed by the Appellant:\n(b) The sale of shares was rightly claimed as exempt long term capital gains\nu/s 10(38) which was earned on sale of shares through Bombay Stock\nExchange (BSE), a recognized stock exchange;\n(c) The sale ... rejection of\nclaim of assessee of Rs. 75,16,570/- u/s 10(38) of the Act by the AO in\nrespect of Long term Capital gains arising out of transactions of alleged\npenny stock namely SRK Industries Ltd. (‘SRK'). The AO made the\nPage 4\nITA No. 6543/Mum/2025

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2)(3), BENGALURU vs. UMA RUGMINI, BENGALURU

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

ITA 2100/BANG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Sathvik, CAFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian .S, JCIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 271FSection 54

said property. The assessee also filed the documentary evidence in support of the cost of improvement and finally the assessee arrived the long term capital gains at Rs. 1,74,52,662/- as against Rs. 2,20,00,000/-. The assessee also furnished the purchase deed dated 05/07/2014

PARVATHANENI PRAVEEN,KHAMMAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, KHAMMAM

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 1271/HYD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Mar 2026AY 2021-22

For Appellant: Sri KA Sai Prasad, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR

period of one month.\n3. The Learned CIT(A) is not justified in confirming the addition of Rs.\n96,86,686/- towards long-term capital gains, as computed by the\nAssessing Officer by adopting the deemed consideration under\nSection 50C of the Income-tax Act, without appreciating that the\nland ... assessee has submitted his\n11\nITA.No.1271/Hyd./2025\nresponse. The relevant reply of the assessee is reproduced as\nunder:\n1) Issue-01: Long Term Capital Gain:\na) With regard to the transfer of Agricultural land, I invite your\nattention to my previous reply dated 07.12.2022, stating\nthat

Showing 1–20 of 2,289 · Page 1 of 115

...