← All Phrases

“long term capital gains”

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

The decision most relied on for long term capital gains is PCIT v. Swati Bajaj (139 Taxmann.com 352), cited in 443 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on long term capital gains

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 gains

ACIT (It) 3(1) (1), Mumbai vs. M/S. J.P.Morgan Indian Investment Company Mauritius Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the CO filed by the assessee is allowed and appeal filed by the revenue becomes infructuous as dismissed

ITA 2382/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 2382/Mum/2021 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Acit-3(1)(1), M/S J. P. Morgan India R. No. 1628, 16Th Floor, Air Investment Company India Building, Nariman Mauritius Limited, बनाम/ Point, Mumbai-400 021 C/O- Srb & Associates Llp, Vs. 14Th Floor, The Ruby 29 Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar (W), Mumbai-400 028 स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaacf0626J (अपीलधथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : & Cross Objection No. 41/Mum/2022 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) M/S J. P. Morgan India Acit-3(1)(1), Investment Company R. No. 1628, 16Th Floor, Air India Mauritius Limited, Building, Nariman Point, बनाम/ C/O- Srb & Associates Mumbai-400 021 Vs. Llp, 14Th Floor, The Ruby 29 Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar (W), Mumbai-400 028 (अपीलधथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलधथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Milind Chavan, Ld. Dr प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Anish Thacker, Ld. Ar सुनवधईकीतधरीख/ : 18.05.2022 & 23.09.2022 Date Of Hearing घोर्णधकीतधरीख / : 27.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri Milind Chavan, Ld. DRFor Respondent: Shri Anish Thacker, Ld. AR
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 144C

erred in setting off the short-term capital losses brought forward from earlier assessment years against the net short-term and long-term capital gains earned in the current assessment year which were claimed as not chargeable to tax under the provisions of the India-Mauritius tax treaty (Treaty ... erred in taking a view that the brought forward short-term capital losses ought to be set off against the long-term capital gains exempt under section 10(38) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (Act). 5. Without prejudice to the above, the Ld. AO has erred in adjusting

Vijay M Pai, Chennai vs. DCIT, CC - 1 (4), Chennai

ITA 3064/CHNY/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3064/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2010-11 Shri Vijay M Pai, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 16, Velliyan Road, Kotturpuram, Income Tax, Chennai 600 085. Central Circle 1(4), Chennai. [Pan:Aaepp5069Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Seetharaman, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Guru Bashyam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 14.07.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.09.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-18, Chennai Dated 22.08.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2010-11. In The Grounds Of Appeal, The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds: 1) Your Petitioner Submits That The Assessing Officer & Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals) Erred In Addition To Capital Gains Of Rs.5,68,75,000/- & Addition Of Expenses Related To Sale Is Rs.4,00,00,000/-. 2) Your Petitioner Submits That At The Time Of Cross Examinations, There Exists No Such Receipt At All As No Monies Were Received By Your Petitioner. Your Petitioner Is Being Subjected To The Assessment Purely On The Basis Of Mrs. Pramila Wealth Tax & Income Tax Returns Which She Has Filed After A Search In Her Premises Earlier.

For Appellant: Shri S. Seetharaman, CAFor Respondent: Shri Guru Bashyam, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153A

filed details. After examining the details and discussions with the assessee’s AR, the Assessing Officer has completed the assessment by recomputing the long term capital gains. The particulars given by the assessee are as under: Particulars Amounts in Rupees Sale consideration 10,56,25,000 Less: Selling Expenses ... improvement FY 2005-06 Less: Indexed cost of ₹.47,63,304 x 632/582 51,72,523 improvement FY 2008-09 Long term capital gain tax 1,39,67,429 4 I.T.A. No.3064/Chny/19 3. After considering the above particulars, the Assessing Officer has asked the assessee that

Parthiban Kalavathi, Chennai vs. ACIT Non Corporate Circle 11, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1131/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1131/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2014-15 Smt. Parthiban Kalavathi, The Asst. Commissioner Of 74, Pidariar Koil Street, Vs. Income Tax, George Town, Non Corporate Circle-11, Chennai – 600 001. Chennai. [Pan: Cxrpk-1062-L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08.09.2022 : 21.09.2022 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Chennai, In Ita

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 54F

making assessment on surplus arising from Joint Development Agreement (JDA) as business profit as against the assessee treating the same under the head “Long Term Capital Gains”. II) The CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of A.O in rejecting the claim of exemption u/s. 54F of the Act pertaining ... multiple units obtained under the JDA in the said computation under the head “Long Term Capital Gains”. 2. For this, the assessee has raised various grounds, but the issue is interconnected and classified into above two issues. Hence, we need not to reproduce the various grounds, which are argumentative

Thomas Mulayimkal, Chennai vs. ITO, Non Corporate Ward 22(5), Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 200/CHNY/2022[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Sept 2022AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.200/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 Shri Thomas Mulayimkal, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 6/8, Periyar Street, Plot No. 176, Anna Non Corporate Ward 22(5), Nagar, Pammal, Chennai 600 075. Tambaram, Chennai 600 045. [Pan:Acipt2203L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.199/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 Smt. Lourdes Mary Arulanandam, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 6/8, Periyar Street, Plot No. 176, Anna Non Corporate Ward 22(5), Nagar, Pammal, Chennai 600 075. Tambaram, Chennai 600 045. [Pan:Acipt2203L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sankarlingam, Cit (Retd.) ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Venkatesh, Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 30.08.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 16.09.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By Different Assessees (Husband & Wife) Are Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, Chennai Both Dated 06.12.2018 Relevant To The Assessment

For Appellant: Shri S. Sankarlingam, CIT (Retd.)For Respondent: Shri S. Venkatesh, Addl.CIT

capital gains account jointly. Subsequently, the assessee has purchased a residential house at Kothamangalam, Ernakulam District, Kerala out of his 50% share of long term capital gains at ₹.1,68,00,423/- vide document No. 2443/2013 dated 10.05.2013. The above purchase was made by the assessee as well

Lourdes Mary Arulanandam, Chennai vs. ITO, Non Corporate Ward 22(5), Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 199/CHNY/2022[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Sept 2022AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.200/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 Shri Thomas Mulayimkal, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 6/8, Periyar Street, Plot No. 176, Anna Non Corporate Ward 22(5), Nagar, Pammal, Chennai 600 075. Tambaram, Chennai 600 045. [Pan:Acipt2203L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.199/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 Smt. Lourdes Mary Arulanandam, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 6/8, Periyar Street, Plot No. 176, Anna Non Corporate Ward 22(5), Nagar, Pammal, Chennai 600 075. Tambaram, Chennai 600 045. [Pan:Acipt2203L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sankarlingam, Cit (Retd.) ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Venkatesh, Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 30.08.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 16.09.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By Different Assessees (Husband & Wife) Are Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, Chennai Both Dated 06.12.2018 Relevant To The Assessment

For Appellant: Shri S. Sankarlingam, CIT (Retd.)For Respondent: Shri S. Venkatesh, Addl.CIT

capital gains account jointly. Subsequently, the assessee has purchased a residential house at Kothamangalam, Ernakulam District, Kerala out of his 50% share of long term capital gains at ₹.1,68,00,423/- vide document No. 2443/2013 dated 10.05.2013. The above purchase was made by the assessee as well

E.Murugan, Kanchipuram vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward 22(30, Tambaram

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

ITA 2206/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2206/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2014-15 E. Murugan, The Income Tax Officer, No.3/91, Padavattamman Vs. Non Corporate Ward-22(3), Koil Street, Padur Post, Tambaram. Omr Road, Kazhipattur, Kanchipuram – 603 103. [Pan: Cixpm-8913-P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : None ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri N. Sanjay Gandhi, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13.09.2022 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 16.09.2022

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri N. Sanjay Gandhi, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 194LSection 54F

hereinafter ‘the Act’) vide order dated 27.12.2016. :- 2 -: 2. The only issue in this appeal of the assessee is assessment of Long Term Capital Gain on compulsory acquisition of land by Government under the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001 (Act No.34/2002) in the hands of the assessee alone instead ... daughter of late Etti and sister of the assessee. The A.O noted this fact in his assessment order, but the A.O computed the Long Term Capital Gain :- 3 -: on the entire compensation received on compulsory acquisition of this land and building in the hands of the assessee I.e. the total