← 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

Neetu Yadav, Gurgaon vs. Income Tax Officer, Gurgaon

ITA 845/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Manish Agarwalita No. 4095/Del/2024 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 4229/Del/2024 : Asstt. Year : 2019-20 Ita No. 845/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Neetu Yadav, Vs Income Tax Officer, 164-P, Sector-15, Part-1, Ward-3(1), Gurgaon, Haryana-122001 Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Abfpy2785C Assessee By : Sh. Anand Kumar Pandey, Adv. & Sh. Archit Pandey, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 29.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.09.2025 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: These Assessee’S Three Appeals In Ita Nos. 4095 & 4229/Del/2024 & Ita No. 845/Del/2025 For Assessment Years 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2019-20, Arise Against The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024- 25/1066728710(1) & 1067097100(1) & 1066774096(1) Dated 15.07.2024, 16.07.2024 & 29.07.2024 In Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”), Respectively.

For Appellant: Sh. Anand Kumar Pandey, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)

remaining appeal ITA No. 4295/Del/2204 for assessment year 2013-14 wherein she is aggrieved against both the learned lower authorities’ action assessing long term capital gains of Rs.3,72,70,000/-, in the assessment order dated 28.12.2019 and upheld in the lower appellate discussion. 8. A very clinching issue

Neetu Yadav, Gurgaon vs. Income Tax Officer, Gurgaon

ITA 4229/DEL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Manish Agarwalita No. 4095/Del/2024 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 4229/Del/2024 : Asstt. Year : 2019-20 Ita No. 845/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Neetu Yadav, Vs Income Tax Officer, 164-P, Sector-15, Part-1, Ward-3(1), Gurgaon, Haryana-122001 Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Abfpy2785C Assessee By : Sh. Anand Kumar Pandey, Adv. & Sh. Archit Pandey, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 29.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.09.2025 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: These Assessee’S Three Appeals In Ita Nos. 4095 & 4229/Del/2024 & Ita No. 845/Del/2025 For Assessment Years 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2019-20, Arise Against The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024- 25/1066728710(1) & 1067097100(1) & 1066774096(1) Dated 15.07.2024, 16.07.2024 & 29.07.2024 In Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”), Respectively.

For Appellant: Sh. Anand Kumar Pandey, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)

remaining appeal ITA No. 4295/Del/2204 for assessment year 2013-14 wherein she is aggrieved against both the learned lower authorities’ action assessing long term capital gains of Rs.3,72,70,000/-, in the assessment order dated 28.12.2019 and upheld in the lower appellate discussion. 8. A very clinching issue

Neetu Yadav, Gurgaon, Haryana vs. Income Tax Officer, Income Tax Office, Gurgaon

ITA 4095/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Manish Agarwalita No. 4095/Del/2024 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 4229/Del/2024 : Asstt. Year : 2019-20 Ita No. 845/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Neetu Yadav, Vs Income Tax Officer, 164-P, Sector-15, Part-1, Ward-3(1), Gurgaon, Haryana-122001 Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Abfpy2785C Assessee By : Sh. Anand Kumar Pandey, Adv. & Sh. Archit Pandey, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 29.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.09.2025 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: These Assessee’S Three Appeals In Ita Nos. 4095 & 4229/Del/2024 & Ita No. 845/Del/2025 For Assessment Years 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2019-20, Arise Against The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024- 25/1066728710(1) & 1067097100(1) & 1066774096(1) Dated 15.07.2024, 16.07.2024 & 29.07.2024 In Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”), Respectively.

For Appellant: Sh. Anand Kumar Pandey, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)

remaining appeal ITA No. 4295/Del/2204 for assessment year 2013-14 wherein she is aggrieved against both the learned lower authorities’ action assessing long term capital gains of Rs.3,72,70,000/-, in the assessment order dated 28.12.2019 and upheld in the lower appellate discussion. 8. A very clinching issue

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circl 1, Coimbatore vs. Tiruchangodu Sengodagounder Ramasamy Khannaiyann, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1383/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1382 & 1383/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2016-17 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Tiruchangodu Sengodagounder Income Tax, Ramasamy Khannaiyan, Central Circle 1, 67, Avarampalaym Road, K.R. Puram, Coimbatore. Coimbatore 641 006. [Pan:Afzpk7832C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri T. Banusekar, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 15.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26.09.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: Both The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against Separate Orders Both Dated 26.02.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 20, Chennai For The Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2016-17. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 13 Days. The Acit Central Circle 1, Coimbatore Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons. Upon Hearing Both The Parties & On Examination

For Appellant: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CITFor Respondent: Shri T. Banusekar, Advocate

Assessee had sold two pieces of land during the relevant previous year. First piece of land at Sowripalayam on which assessee returned long term capital gains 33,52,365/- Obviously, the land was more than three years old since its purchase. Second piece of land sold by assessee at Othakalmandapam ... Assessee had sold two pieces of land during the relevant previous year. First piece of land at Sowripalayam on which assessee returned long term capital gains 33,52,365/- Obviously, the land was more than three years old since its purchase. Second piece of land sold by assessee at Othakalmandapam

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 1, Coimbatore vs. Tiruchangodu Sengodagounder Ramasamy Khannaiyan, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1382/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1382 & 1383/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2016-17 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Tiruchangodu Sengodagounder Income Tax, Ramasamy Khannaiyan, Central Circle 1, 67, Avarampalaym Road, K.R. Puram, Coimbatore. Coimbatore 641 006. [Pan:Afzpk7832C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri T. Banusekar, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 15.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26.09.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: Both The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against Separate Orders Both Dated 26.02.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 20, Chennai For The Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2016-17. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 13 Days. The Acit Central Circle 1, Coimbatore Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons. Upon Hearing Both The Parties & On Examination

For Appellant: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CITFor Respondent: Shri T. Banusekar, Advocate

Assessee had sold two pieces of land during the relevant previous year. First piece of land at Sowripalayam on which assessee returned long term capital gains 33,52,365/- Obviously, the land was more than three years old since its purchase. Second piece of land sold by assessee at Othakalmandapam ... Assessee had sold two pieces of land during the relevant previous year. First piece of land at Sowripalayam on which assessee returned long term capital gains 33,52,365/- Obviously, the land was more than three years old since its purchase. Second piece of land sold by assessee at Othakalmandapam

Subhlaxmi Gurunath Kamat, Sindhudurg vs. Income Tax Officer, Kudal

ITA 1795/PUN/2025[A.Y.2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Sept 2025

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.1795/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Subhlaxmi Gurunath Kamat, V The Income Tax Officer, 308, Kalasewadi, Banda S Ward-1, Kudal, S.O.(Sindhudurg), Banda, Sindhudurg. Sindhudurg – 416510. Pan: Cmwpk9642J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Pramod S Shingte Revenue By Shri Aviyogi Ambadkar– Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 10/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 25/09/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2018-19 Dated 06.05.2025 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 147 R.W.S 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 06.03.2023. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 48(1)Section 50C

case and in law the CIT(A), NFAC erred in confirming the action of the AO, NaFAC of computing the income from Long Term Capital Gains in the hands of the appellant at Rs.52,80,000 applying the provisions of Section 50C. The appellant submits as under, without prejudice ... section 50C without referring the valuation to the Departmental Valuation Officer in terms of the provisions of the said section. b. The Long Term Capital Gain ought to have been calculated after allowing deduction u/s 48(1) of the indexed cost of acquisition. The appellant prays that

Lintas Employees Health Assistance Trust, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 25(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4364/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2019-20 Lintas Employees Health Income-Tax Officer, Assistance Trust Ward – 25(2)(1), 13Th Floor, Express Towers Mumbai Nariman Point, Vs. Mumbai – 400021 (Pan: Aaatl0325M) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Prakash Jotwani & Ms Priya Gada, Advocates Revenue : Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.09.2025 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By Assessee Is Against The Order Of Addl/Jcit (A)-1, Hyderabad Vide Order No. Itba/Apl/S/250/2024- 25/1074797264(1), Dated 21.03.2025 Passed Against The Intimation Issued By The Central Processing Centre Of The Department, Bengaluru (Cpc) U/S. 143(1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 12.05.2020 For Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: Ground No. 1: Erred In Not Condoning Delay In Filing The Appeal The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Dismissing The Appeal Without Considering The Merits Of The Case & Erred In Not Condoning The Delay Of 964 Days In Filing The Appeal

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Jotwani and Ms Priya Gada, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr. DR
Section 10(15)Section 10(35)Section 143(1)

Dividend from Mutual Funds - Rs. 16,36,856/- (Exempt from tax)  Interest from Tax Free Bonds- Rs. 1,23,089/- (Exempt from tax)  Long Term Capital Gains - Rs. 40,63,652/- (Book Profit) ------------------------ Total Rs. 58,23,597/- ------------------------- 4. The ld. CIT(A) failed to take into consideration that ... head business income: i. dividend from mutual funds - Rs.16,36,856/-. ii. interest from tax-free bonds - Rs. 1,23,089/-. iii. long-term capital gains - Rs. 40,63,652/- Thus, totalling to Rs.58,23,597/-. Out of these incomes, claim of the assessee is that income from dividend

Tata Communications Limited, Mumbai vs. Principle Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai

In the result, the question of law referred to the Special Bench is answered in favour of the assessee

ITA 3515/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Arun Khodpiatata Communications Limited Pr. Cit, Videsh Sanchar Bhavan, Mumbai-1 Vs. M. G. Road, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 Pan/Gir No. Aaacv 2808 C (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri J. D. Mistri Respondent By : Shri Ritesh Misra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 25.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.09.2025 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey: The Present Appeal, At The Instance Of The Assessee, Assails Order Dated 21.03.2025, Passed U/S. 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ For Short), By Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (‘Ld. Pcit’ For Short), Pertaining To The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2018-19. 2. Though The Assessee Has Raised Multiple Grounds, Both On Jurisdictional Issues As Well As On Merits, However, There Is Consensus Between The Parties That The Appeal Can Be Decided On Merits, In Which Event, There Is No Need To Go Into Various Other Issues Raised In Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri J. D. MistriFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT DR
Section 112Section 143(3)Section 263Section 50

rate applicable to STCG. Whereas, the assessee has computed the tax liability in terms with section 112 of the Act applicable to Long Term Capital Gain (‘LTCG’ for short). He observed, since the A.O. has accepted the claim of the assessee, the assessment order is not only erroneous, but prejudicial ... asset is chargeable at the rate 4 Tata Communications Limited vs. Pr. CIT applicable to short term capital gains or rates applicable to long term capital gains under section 112 of the Act?” 9. While answering the question referred to, ld. Special Bench, as per the majority view, held