← 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

Greaves Cotton Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 6(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by assessee is partly allowed in the terms aforesaid

ITA 7742/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं.7742/मुं/2014 ("न.व. 2010-11) Greaves Cotton Ltd. 3Rd Floor, Motilal Oswal Tower, Junction Of Gokhale & Sayani Road, Prabhadevi, Mumbai 400 025. Pan: Aaacg-2062-M ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 6(3), Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent Mumbai 400 020. अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Smt. Aarti Vissanji, Advocate ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Smt. Vranda U. Matkari, Sr.A.R सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 27/05/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 22/08/2022 आदेश/ Order

For Appellant: Smt. Aarti Vissanji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Vranda U. Matkari, Sr.A.R
Section 10(54)Section 115OSection 143(3)Section 14A

under section 14A r.w.r. 8D- Rs,11,10,355/- Ground C: Unutilized Cenvat Credit – Rs.9,32,524/- Ground D: Capital Receipt treated as Long Term Capital Gains – Rs.81,10,875/- Ground E : Book Profit – Provision for Expenses – Rs.2,06,71,770/- Ground F : Book Profit – Disallowance u/s. 14A r.w.r ... ground ‘D’ of appeal, the assessee has assailed the findings of Assessing Officer and CIT(A) in treating capital receipt as long term capital gains. The ld.Counsel for the assessee submitted that during the Financial Year 2009-10 the assessee has received amount on sale of TDR. There

ACIT 2(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Mahima Stocks Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the orders passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal to the extent it is against the assessee are hereby quashed

ITA 2486/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singhacit – 2(2)(1) Vs. M/S Mahima Stocks Room No. 545, 5Th Floor Pvt Ltd Aayakarbhavan, 1,Gaureshapartments, M.K.Road, Old Police Line, Mumbai – 400020. Andheri (E) Mumbai – 400069. Pan/Gir No. : Aaecm2983K Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Smt.Mahita Nair.Dr Respondent By : Shri.Vimal Punmiya.Ar Date Of Hearing 10.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 24.08.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Cit(A)- National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Passed U/S143(3) & U/Sec250 Of The Act. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Smt.Mahita Nair.DRFor Respondent: Shri.Vimal Punmiya.AR
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 48

book profits computed under revised return of income is reduction of book profits by Rs.3,08,57,799/- and the difference represents long term capital gains earned by the assessee. The amount disclosed in the audited profit and loss account and the long term capital gains computed ... different. Whereas, the difference being the benefit of indexation of cost allowed u/s 48 of the Act while computing the long term capital gains, which is not available to the assessee while computing the book profits u/s 115JB Mahima Stocks Pvt Ltd., Mumbai. of the Act. The A.O. observed that

Mr. Mahesh D. Saini, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-35(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1929/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vp & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1929/Mum/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2011-12) Mr. Mahesh D. Saini बिधम/ Ito, Ward-35(2)(3) 203, Lukhi Niwas Kailash Room No. 745, 7Th Floor, Vs. Puri, Upper Govind Nagar, Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To Plot No. 135, Malad (E), C-43, G Block, Bandra Mumbai-400097. Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aajps1048M (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Haresh B. Shah Revenue By: Dr. Pratap Narayan Sharma (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 27/06/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 10/08/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-46, Mumbai Dated 28.02.2020 For Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.1,05,37,002/- As Long Term Capital Gain (Ltcg) Treating The Purported Capital Asset As Transfer In View Of The Provisions Of Section 2(47) (V) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) R.W. Section 53A Of The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 (4 Of 1882) (Hereinafter In Short As “Topa”). 3. Brief Facts Of The Case As Noted By The Ld. Cit(A) Is That The Ao Noticed That During The Year, The Assessee Jointly With His Two (2) Brothers, Viz Shri Formal Dedrajmali Alias Sainik/Siani & Shri Kailash Dedraj Mali Alias Sainik/Saini, Entered Into Sale Cum

For Appellant: Shri Haresh B. ShahFor Respondent: Dr. Pratap Narayan Sharma (Sr
Section 2(47)Section 50CSection 53A

grievance of the assessee is against the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the addition of Rs.1,05,37,002/- as long term capital gain (LTCG) treating the purported capital asset as transfer in view of the provisions of Section 2(47) (v) of the Income ... Hence the deemed consideration of the said transfer of the share of the assessee comes to Rs.1,21,00,000/-. Accordingly, long term capital gains arisen out of transfer of the 1/3 right title of the share of the assessee in the property covered in the Sale-Cum -Development Agreement

Mr. Lalitkumar Thanmaljain, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 26 (2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4915/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalemr. Lalitkumar Vs. Ito, Ward – 26(2)(1) Thanmal Jain, Pratyaksha Kar Bhavan, A/705, Bawa Tower Bkc, Bandra East Chs, Narayan Nagar, Mumbai -400051. Chunabatti, Mumbai-400022. Pan/Gir No. Aacpj9078M Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri Nitesh Jain.Ar Respondent By : Shri Manoj Sinha.Dr Date Of Hearing 28.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 29.07.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-38, Mumbai Passed U/S 143(3) & 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Jain.ARFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Sinha.DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

price The addition of & 11,00,000/- was made by the learned Assessing Officer under the head short term capital gain instead of long term capital gain. The said ground was not pressed by the Assessee in the appeal filed before the Hon'ble CIT(A). However, on the mere ... addition from Rs.11Lakhs to Rs35Lakhs being the sale consideration on sale of flat and was treated as short term capital gains instead of Long Term capital gains. The CIT(A) has also erred in enhancing the addition without opportunity of being heard and the assessee has a good case

Smt.Vani Shree, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-6(2)(4), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 383/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2015-16 Smt. Vani Shree, No. 49, 3Rd Cross, The Income-Tax Marappa Thota, Officer, J.C. Nagar, Ward 6 (2)(4), Bangalore – 560 006. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Gayps9756K Appellant Respondent : Shri S.V. Ravi Shankar, Assessee By Advocate : Shri Ramesh B.R., Addl. Cit Revenue By (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 09-06-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-07-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against Order Dated 05.12.2018 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A)-6, Bangalore For A.Y. 2015-16 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Bengaluru, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Act In So Far As It Is Against The Appellant Is Opposed To Law, Weight Of Evidence, Natural Justice, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Appellant'S Case. 2. The Appellant Denies Herself To Be Liable To Be Assessed To Total Income Of Rs.2,16,39,499/- On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case.

For Respondent: Shri S.V. Ravi shankar
Section 143(2)Section 234ASection 250Section 54F

learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) is not justified in law in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,99,07,549/- long term capital gains on the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the appellant is eligible ... Appeals) failed to appreciate that the appellant is entitled to point out the mistake in the assessment proceedings and claim that the long term capital gains is required to be charged to tax in AY 2012-13 as against declared by the appellant in AY 2015-16 on the facts