← 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

Vimla Babulal Khandelwal, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT-17, Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1186/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 May 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Om Prakash Kanti.T.A. Nos.1184,1185&1186/Mum/2021 Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Vimla Babulal Khandelwal..……..….……..….…..………………….……Appellant Narayan Plaza, 135, Ram Mandir Road, Oshiwara, Nr. Singh Industrial Estate, Goregaon (W) Mumbai-400104. [Pan: Adopk3702A] Vs. Pcit, Mumbai-17………………………….…………...……………..…..Respondent Appearances By: None Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Achal Sharma, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 12, 2022 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 19, 2022 Order Per Sanjay Garg:

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(2)Section 68

Rs.35,64,680/- was assessed U/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 on 30.11.2017 making an addition of Rs.33,02,340/- as a bogus Long Term Capital Gains (LTCG) U/s 68 of the Act on the basis that the assessee had traded in penny stock i.e. scrip "M/s Nouveau Multimedia Ltd." having ... jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act examined the assessment records and observed that the Assessing Officer had erred in adding only the long-term capital gain 2 I.T.A. Nos.1184,1185&1186/Mum/2021 Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Vimla Babulal Khandelwal on sale of penny stock and not entire

Vimla Babulal Khandelwal, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT-17, Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1185/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 May 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Om Prakash Kanti.T.A. Nos.1184,1185&1186/Mum/2021 Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Vimla Babulal Khandelwal..……..….……..….…..………………….……Appellant Narayan Plaza, 135, Ram Mandir Road, Oshiwara, Nr. Singh Industrial Estate, Goregaon (W) Mumbai-400104. [Pan: Adopk3702A] Vs. Pcit, Mumbai-17………………………….…………...……………..…..Respondent Appearances By: None Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Achal Sharma, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 12, 2022 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 19, 2022 Order Per Sanjay Garg:

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(2)Section 68

Rs.35,64,680/- was assessed U/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 on 30.11.2017 making an addition of Rs.33,02,340/- as a bogus Long Term Capital Gains (LTCG) U/s 68 of the Act on the basis that the assessee had traded in penny stock i.e. scrip "M/s Nouveau Multimedia Ltd." having ... jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act examined the assessment records and observed that the Assessing Officer had erred in adding only the long-term capital gain 2 I.T.A. Nos.1184,1185&1186/Mum/2021 Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Vimla Babulal Khandelwal on sale of penny stock and not entire

Vimla Babulal Khandelwal, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT-17, Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1184/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 May 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Om Prakash Kanti.T.A. Nos.1184,1185&1186/Mum/2021 Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Vimla Babulal Khandelwal..……..….……..….…..………………….……Appellant Narayan Plaza, 135, Ram Mandir Road, Oshiwara, Nr. Singh Industrial Estate, Goregaon (W) Mumbai-400104. [Pan: Adopk3702A] Vs. Pcit, Mumbai-17………………………….…………...……………..…..Respondent Appearances By: None Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Achal Sharma, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 12, 2022 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 19, 2022 Order Per Sanjay Garg:

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(2)Section 68

Rs.35,64,680/- was assessed U/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 on 30.11.2017 making an addition of Rs.33,02,340/- as a bogus Long Term Capital Gains (LTCG) U/s 68 of the Act on the basis that the assessee had traded in penny stock i.e. scrip "M/s Nouveau Multimedia Ltd." having ... jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act examined the assessment records and observed that the Assessing Officer had erred in adding only the long-term capital gain 2 I.T.A. Nos.1184,1185&1186/Mum/2021 Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Vimla Babulal Khandelwal on sale of penny stock and not entire

The Joint Lessees of Industrial Estate, Mumbai vs. ITO 20 (2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the assessee appeal is allowed

ITA 2797/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 May 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalethe Joint Lessees Of Vs. Ito – 20(2)(1), Industrial Estate, Piramal Chambers, 1St Floor, Estate Bldg Ii Floor,Lalbaug, Lalbaug Industrial Mumbai – 400012 Estate, Dr B.A. Road, Mumbai – 400012 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaaj7202Q Appellant .. Respondent Ito – 20(2)(1) Vs. The Joint Lessees Of Piramal Chambers, Industrial Estate, Ii Floor,Lalbaug, 1St Floor, Estate Bldg Mumbai – 400012 Lalbaug Industrial Estate, Dr B.A.Road, Mumbai – 400012 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaaj7202Q Appellant .. Respondent Appellant /Respondent By Shri G.P Mehta.Ar : Respondent/Appellant By Shri T. Shankar.Dr : Date Of Hearing 11.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 09.05.2022 आदेश / O R D E R

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 153Section 24(1)(a)Section 50C

under: ‘During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee has claimed loss from house property and declared income from transfer of tenancy right & long term capital gains on sale of property and their distribution among the members of the AOP, vide chart reproduced below: Income from house property ... Manoj C. Chokshi 12.5% 166,250.00 - 6 Anandji Naranji & 8.335 110,789.00 110,789.00 Co Income-Loss 100% 13,30,000 875,867.0 Long term capital gain on sale of property as per computation filed on 05.03.2015 Income Rs. 1,16,27,778/-. The total income distributed as under

Harish Subramaniam Iyer, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT -27, Navi Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by assessee is allowed

ITA 873/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं.873/मुं/2021 ("न.व. 2016-17) Harish Subramaniam Iyer, A-10, Sidhpura Industrial Estate, Lbs Marg, Ghatkopar (West), Mumbai 400 086 Pan: Aaapi-3669-R ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax 27, 401, 4Th Floor, Tower No.6, Vashi Rly. Station Commercial Complex, Vashi, Navi Mumbai 400 703 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Vijay Mehta ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Azhar Zain सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 02/02/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 02/05/2022 आदेश/ Order

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Azhar Zain
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

notice issued u/s. 142(1) of the Act, the assessee had given details of capital assets sold/purchased, short term capital gains, long term capital gains , etc. We find that the assessee had tabulated short term capital gains /long term capital gains in the reply. The assessee has also placed ... assessment year under appeal. Thus, the Assessing Officer has allowed the loss to be carry forward. The assessee had furnished the statement of long term capital gains / long term capital loss earned during the period relevant to the assessment year under appeal. The Assessing Officer after examining the same accepted