← 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

M/S. Rama Recycling Pvt. Tld., Mumbai vs. DCIT Cent. Cir.- 2, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1102/MUM/2006[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Apr 2022AY 2001-2002

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble & M/S. Rama Recycling Pvt. Ltd., V. Dcit – Central Circle – 2 1711, World Trade Centre – 1 Cgo Building Cufe Parade, Mumbai – 400005 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aaacr1794F (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S. Rama Scrap Recycling Pvt. Ltd., V. Acit – Central Circle – 2 181, Maker Tower “E" Cgo Building, 9Th Floor Cuffe Parade, Mumbai - 400005 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aaacr1794F (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit – Central Circle – 3(3) V. M/S. Rama Recycling (P) Ltd., Room No. 609, 6Th Floor {Formerly Rama Scrap Recycling Pvt. Ltd.,} 181, Maker Tower “E" Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Cuffe Parade, Mumbai - 400005 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aaacr1794F (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri C.T. Mathews
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)

assessing surplus of Rs.43,44,700/- realised on surrender of rights to acquire the flats as “Short term capital gains" as against "Long term capital gains" shown by the Appellant. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the flats were surrendered after a period of 36 months ... such surplus realised on such surrender ought to be taxed as "Long term capital gains" allowing the benefits of indexation and rate of income tax. 3. In reaching to the conclusion and confirming such view of the AO, the Ld. CIT(A) omitted to consider relevant factors, considerations, principles

Shri Rajeev Nataraj Legal Heir of Late Shri P Nataraj, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-10(2), Bangalore

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

ITA 848/BANG/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Mar 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2008-09 Shri Rajeev Nataraj, L/H Of Late Shri P Nataraj, No. 63, 1St Cross, The Income Tax Udaya Nagar, Officer, Chikkalsandra, Off Ward 10(2), Uttarahalli Road, Bangalore. Vs. Bangalore – 560 061. Pan: Ahapn9475D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri H. Siva Prasad Reddy, Ar : Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl. Revenue By Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 09-02-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 31-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 11/02/2019 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A)-3, Bangalore For Assessment Year 2008-09 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Impugned Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax [Appeals] U/S 250 Of The Act & That Of The Order Of Assessment Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer Under Section 143[3] R/W 147 Of The Act To The Extent Which Is Against The Appellant Is Opposed To Law, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Appellant'S Case. 2. The Order Of Assessment Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer Under Section 143[3] R.W.S 147 Of The Act Is Bad In Law Since The Mandatory Conditions As Envisaged

For Appellant: Shri H. Siva Prasad Reddy, AR
Section 143Section 234Section 250Section 54

income on 31.03.2010 for the Assessment Year 2008-09 declaring a total income of Rs. 1,90,000/- (Income from pension) after claiming Long Term Capital Gains exemption u/s. 54 to the extent of Rs.1,68,60,550/-. 2.2 The Ld.AO observed that the assessee computed LTCG as exempt under ... section 54 as under: Sl.no Particulars Amount(Rs) A Computed Long Term Capital Gains 1,68,60,550 B Exemption Claimed u/s 54 Two Residential Apartments situated 1 1,26,00,000 in JDA Property. One Residential Property situated at No. 580, 6th Cross 3rd Main

Smt. S.M.Shoba, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 7(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

ITA 1955/BANG/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Mar 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2016-17 Smt. S.M. Shoba, No. 1489, First Floor, The Income Tax 40Th Cross, 4Th T Block, Officer, Jayanagar, Ward 7 (2)(1), Bangalore – 560 041. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Cxkps1454H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ramasubramanian, Ca : Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl. Revenue By Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 09-02-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Has Been Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 05.07.2019 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A)-7, Bangalore For Assessment Year 2016-17 On Following Grounds Of Appeal. “1. That The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income- Tax (Appeals) In So Far It Is Prejudicial To The Interests Of The Appellant Is Bad & Erroneous In Law & Against The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. That The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) Erred In Law & On Facts In Denying The Cost Of The Land For Claiming Exemption U/S. 54F Of The Act On The Ground That Such Land Was Purchased Four Years Prior To The Date Of Sale Of Original Asset. 3. That The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred In Law & On Facts In Making An Enhancing The Assessment By Making A Of Disallowance From Rs.

For Appellant: Shri Ramasubramanian, CA
Section 54F

called for. From the assessment order, the Ld.AO noted that assessee had declared income from other sources of Rs. 8,66,860/- and long term capital gains of Rs. Nil. We observe that assessee claimed deduction u/s. 54F of Page 3 of 14 Rs.4,64,16,154/- being cost ... Cost of construction Rs. 14,90,260/- (Rs. 3,27,03,509-Rs. 3,12,13,249) was brought to tax and the Long Term Capital Gains was computed at Rs.14,90,260/-. The Ld.AO was of the opinion that the property acquired by assessee on 10.02.2011 was before

Kalpana Vinod Paymaster, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir-35 (1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by assessee is allowed

ITA 1665/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं.1665/मुं/2021 ("न.व. 2011-12) Kalpana Vinod Paymaster, 151,Buena Vista, Gen.J.Bhosle Marg, Near Mantralaya, Mumbai – 400 018. Pan: Ajspp-0625-P ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. A.C.I.T, Circle -35(1), Kautalya Bhavan, B.K.C, Bandra (E) ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent Mumbai 400 051. अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Ms. Dinkle Hariya ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Uodal Raj Singh सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 21/03/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 21/03/2022 आदेश/ Order

For Appellant: Ms. Dinkle HariyaFor Respondent: Shri Uodal Raj Singh
Section 154Section 156Section 271(1)(c)Section 80G

while passing assessment order, the Assessing Officer allowed the claim of set off of long term capital loss of Rs.1,81,499/- against long term capital gain of Rs.25,32,371/- in a suo-motu rectification order dated 14/07/2014. Further, the Assessing Officer while passing the assessment order dated 24/03/2014 ... Rs.1,25,000/- u/s.80GGA of the Act. The assessee in the revised computation of income filed at the time of assessment offered long term capital gain of Rs.23,50,872/- at a special rate of 10% without indexation benefit. The claim of the assessee was accepted by the Assessing Officer

Mr Sanjay Dutt, Mumbai vs. JCIT Range 11 (1), Mumbai

ITA 91/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singh. आअसं. 7109/मुं/2012 ("न.व.2004-05) आअसं. 91/मुं/2020 ("न.व.2011-12) आअसं. 92/मुं/2020 ("न.व.2012-13) Sanjay S. Dutt, 1101, Imperial Heights, Smt. Nargis Dutt Road,Pali Hill, Bandra (W), Mumbai 400 050 : अपीलाथ"/ Appellant Pan:Aajpd-2027-K बनाम/ Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income –Tax 11(1), Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020. : ""थ"/ Respondent आअसं. 2414/मुं/2015 ("न.व.2005-06) Asstt. Commissioner Of Income –Tax 16(1), Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020. : अपीलाथ"/ Appellant बनाम/ Vs. Sanjay S. Dutt, 1101, Imperial Hights, Smt. Nargis Dutt Road,Pali Hill, Bandra (W), Mumbai 400 050 Pan:Aajpd-2027-K : ""थ"/ Respondent Assessee By : Shri Stany Saldana Revenue By : Shri B.K. Bagchi

For Appellant: Shri Stany SaldanaFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Bagchi
Section 54F

grounds. The issues that emerges from the grounds of appeal are valuation of property as on 01/04/1981 and consequent determination of Long Term Capital Gain(LTCG) and denial of exemption under section 54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( in short ‘the Act’). 3. This appeal is time barred ... 14/01/2015 for the assessment year 2005-06. The Revenue in appeal has raised solitary ground assailing the finding of CIT(A) in allowing Long Term Capital Gains on sale of land, whereas the agreement entered into by the assessee with the buyers of flats does not state that ownership

ACIT 16(1), Mumbai vs. Sanjay Dutt, Mumbai

ITA 2414/MUM/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Mar 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singh. आअसं. 7109/मुं/2012 ("न.व.2004-05) आअसं. 91/मुं/2020 ("न.व.2011-12) आअसं. 92/मुं/2020 ("न.व.2012-13) Sanjay S. Dutt, 1101, Imperial Heights, Smt. Nargis Dutt Road,Pali Hill, Bandra (W), Mumbai 400 050 : अपीलाथ"/ Appellant Pan:Aajpd-2027-K बनाम/ Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income –Tax 11(1), Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020. : ""थ"/ Respondent आअसं. 2414/मुं/2015 ("न.व.2005-06) Asstt. Commissioner Of Income –Tax 16(1), Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020. : अपीलाथ"/ Appellant बनाम/ Vs. Sanjay S. Dutt, 1101, Imperial Hights, Smt. Nargis Dutt Road,Pali Hill, Bandra (W), Mumbai 400 050 Pan:Aajpd-2027-K : ""थ"/ Respondent Assessee By : Shri Stany Saldana Revenue By : Shri B.K. Bagchi

For Appellant: Shri Stany SaldanaFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Bagchi
Section 54F

grounds. The issues that emerges from the grounds of appeal are valuation of property as on 01/04/1981 and consequent determination of Long Term Capital Gain(LTCG) and denial of exemption under section 54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( in short ‘the Act’). 3. This appeal is time barred ... 14/01/2015 for the assessment year 2005-06. The Revenue in appeal has raised solitary ground assailing the finding of CIT(A) in allowing Long Term Capital Gains on sale of land, whereas the agreement entered into by the assessee with the buyers of flats does not state that ownership

Sanjay S. Dutt, Mumbai vs. Asst 11(1), Mumbai

ITA 7109/MUM/2012[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Mar 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singh. आअसं. 7109/मुं/2012 ("न.व.2004-05) आअसं. 91/मुं/2020 ("न.व.2011-12) आअसं. 92/मुं/2020 ("न.व.2012-13) Sanjay S. Dutt, 1101, Imperial Heights, Smt. Nargis Dutt Road,Pali Hill, Bandra (W), Mumbai 400 050 : अपीलाथ"/ Appellant Pan:Aajpd-2027-K बनाम/ Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income –Tax 11(1), Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020. : ""थ"/ Respondent आअसं. 2414/मुं/2015 ("न.व.2005-06) Asstt. Commissioner Of Income –Tax 16(1), Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020. : अपीलाथ"/ Appellant बनाम/ Vs. Sanjay S. Dutt, 1101, Imperial Hights, Smt. Nargis Dutt Road,Pali Hill, Bandra (W), Mumbai 400 050 Pan:Aajpd-2027-K : ""थ"/ Respondent Assessee By : Shri Stany Saldana Revenue By : Shri B.K. Bagchi

For Appellant: Shri Stany SaldanaFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Bagchi
Section 54F

grounds. The issues that emerges from the grounds of appeal are valuation of property as on 01/04/1981 and consequent determination of Long Term Capital Gain(LTCG) and denial of exemption under section 54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( in short ‘the Act’). 3. This appeal is time barred ... 14/01/2015 for the assessment year 2005-06. The Revenue in appeal has raised solitary ground assailing the finding of CIT(A) in allowing Long Term Capital Gains on sale of land, whereas the agreement entered into by the assessee with the buyers of flats does not state that ownership