← 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

Atyant Capital India Fund-I, Mumbai vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax (International) Tax Circle 1(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 573/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Sunil M LalaFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 250Section 251Section 74

erred in not considering the claim of your appellant on merits and in further incorrectly observing that "the appellant has sought to claim long term capital gains as exempt under DTAA, but for the same source of income being long term capital loss, it has sought to carry it forward ... permitted to disallow the carry forward of long- term capital loss on the basis that the assessee, on one hand, claimed long- term capital gains as exempt under the provisions of the India-Mauritius Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (“DTAA”), while on the other hand, the long-term capital loss

Selina N. Sheth, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer -17(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the ground No

ITA 2352/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Selina N. Sheth Ito, Ward – 17(3)(1), M/S. Kalyaniwalla & Mistry Llp, Vs Aayakar Bhawan, M.K. Road, Esplanade House, 2Nd Floor, Mumbai – 400020. 29 Hazarimal Somani Marg, Fort, Mumbai – 400001. [Pan: Aabps9851L] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 10(38)Section 148Section 2(14)Section 254(1)Section 57

doing no business, the said receipt is a capital receipt and the proceeds are required to be considered for taxation under the head Long Term Capital Gains. Merely because the redemption proceeds are not exempt under section 10(10D) does not automatically make the receipt taxable as income. Section ... assessee has invested in the said policy on 30.12.2006 and had surrendered the same on 31.12.2013. The assessee has declared the same as ‘long term capital gain’ treating the said policy as a capital asset u/s.2(14) of the Act and the same is reflected in the balance sheet

Khem Singh, Delhi vs. ITO Ward 67(7), New Delhi

ITA 4548/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 147Section 48

solitary substantive issue between the parties, it transpires during the course of hearing that both the learned lower authorities have assessed long term capital gains amounting to Rs. 9,78,125/- in the assessee’s hands, in assessment order dated 31.10.2019 as upheld in the lower appellate discussion. 3. That ... case, the Revenue could hardly dispute that the learned Assessing Officer has assessed the assessee’s 1/4th share in sale consideration as his long term capital gain without allowing any benefit of part acquisition as well as indexation thereof, as prescribed u/s 48 r.w.s

Ahmed Lakadia, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-5(3)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 498/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Varis Isani, AdovcateFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 147Section 271(1)(C)Section 68

order on ex-parte basis and disallowed the exemption claimed under Section 10(38) of the Act, by treating the same as bogus Long Term Capital Gains from investment in penny stock. Accordingly, a sum of Rs. 2,88,35,888/- was disallowed and added to the income

Income Tax Officer Ward 52(1) New Delhi, New Delhi vs. M/S Novel Infratech, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 188/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sudhir Kumarito, Vs. M/S. Novel Infratech, Ward-52(1), Flat No. 915, Indra Prakash New Delhi Building, 21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aajfn0187A

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR
Section 131(1)(d)Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68

refunded and there were no outstanding amount. The assessee submitted that the statements relied upon by the AO were in respect to bogus Long term capital gains being provided by Mr Anil Khemka, the main operator of the companies. The statements were used without bringing on record the relevance

Income Tax Officer, Income Tax Department vs. Mahavir Singhal, Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue and cross objection filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 3428/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Ito Vs. Mahavir Singhal Delhi 149, Tarun Enclave, Pitampura, Delhi-34 Pan No.Aixps8088B (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.411/D/2025 (In Ita No.3428/Del/2024) Assessment Year: 2014-15 Mahavir Singhal Vs. Ito 149, Tarun Enclave, Delhi Pitampura, Delhi-34 Pan No.Aixps8088B (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 10(38)Section 142Section 143Section 69C

have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We find that during the year the assessee earned the long- term capital gain of Rs.49,45,329/- on the sale of the shares and the same was claimed as exempt ... under : 5(c). Despite filing of the above supportings, the AO simply proceeded to deny the assessee's claim of exemption of long term capital gains on sale of above shares. The AO did not make any efforts to establish the non-genuineness of the above transaction

Panda Srinivas, Hyderabad vs. ADIT (Int Taxn)-2, Hyderabad

ITA 682/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Us:

Section 143(2)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 54F

Accordingly, the A.O. vide his draft assessment order passed u/s 144C(1) of the Act, dated 26.03.2024 re-determined the “Long Term Capital Gains” (“LTCG") on the sale of the subject property at Rs.2,66,74,645/-. 4. Apart from that, the A.O. made an addition of Rs.1

Praveen Sitaram Agarwal, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, WD-24(3)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 3454/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69C

challenged the addition of ₹1,63,34,228/- made under section 68 on account of the 2 Praveen Sitaram Agarwal alleged bogus long‑term capital gains earned from the sale of listed equity shares of M/s. Surabhi Chemicals & Investments Ltd., which had been claimed as exempt under section ... assessee has disputed the addition of ₹4,90,026/- made under section 69C towards alleged commission expenses, computed at 3% of the long‑term capital gains. 3. Briefly stated, the assessee is an individual who has been engaged in making investments in equity shares on a long‑term basis

Akram, Bulandshahr vs. ITO Ward 2(3)(1), Bulandshahr

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 4668/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 4668/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Akram, Vs Income Tax Officer, H. No. 31, Wazidpur Khurja, Ward-2(3)(1), Bulandshahr, U.P.-203131 Bulandshahr, U.P. (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Bwbpa9399C Assessee By: Sh. Pranav Yadav, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 26.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.08.2025 Order This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2012-13, Arises Against The Addl./Jcit(A)-5, Mumbai’S Din & Order No. Itba/Apl/S/250/2024-25/1066194528(1) Dated 28.06.2024, In Proceedings U/S 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: Sh. Pranav Yadav, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 2(14)

that the learned Assessing Officer had held the assessee who have sold/transferred a capital asset in the relevant financial year giving rise to long term capital gains addition of Rs.11,48,333/- followed by household expenditure withdrawal addition of Rs.2,00,000/-, in assessment order dated 18.12.2019 as upheld

Vimal Kumar Banka, Kanpur vs. ITO Ward-1(2)(1), Kanpur

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 25/LKW/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow25 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2012-13 Vimal Kumar Banka V. The Ito 5/P/25, Dabauli Ward 1(2)(1) Kanpur Kanpur Tan/Pan:Afzb1801J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against Order Dated 24.11.2023, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For Assessment Year 2012-13. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That As Per The Assessing Officer (Ao), The Assessee Had Not Filed The Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration. The Income Tax Department Was In Possession Of Information That The Assessee Had Sold An Immovable Property, Jointly Held With Mrs Kanchan Talwar, During The Year Under Consideration For A Consideration Of Rs.10,00,000/- & The Value Of The Same As Per The Stamp Valuation Authority Was Rs.23,15,000/-. The Assessing Officer (Ao), Therefore, Reopened The Case Of The Assessee Under Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act’)

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 151

requiring the assessee to furnish the details of income and computation, copy of sale and purchase deed of property, computation of Long Term Capital Gains (LTCG), Bank statement, etc. In response, the assessee had furnished his written submissions along with computation of income. The claim of the assessee before ... quashed. 5. Because the Assessing Officer has failed to appreciate the facts and circumstances of the case and has arbitrarily computed the Long Term Capital Gains (LTCGs) at Rs.5,62,730/- as against Rs.17,502/- declared by the assessee, the addition made by the Assessing Officer be deleted. 6. Because

Hari Singh Chauhan, Kanpur vs. Income Tax Officer 3(5), Aayakar Bhawan

The appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 344/LKW/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow25 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2012-13 Hari Singh Chouhan V. The Income Tax Officer 3(5) 1, Naramau Kanpur Kanpur Nagar (U.P) Tan/Pan:Askpc3749A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Srhi Rakesh Garg, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R. O R D E R

For Appellant: Srhi Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R
Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 50CSection 55A

assessee and the materials placed on record, the AO completed the assessment under section 147 read with 144 of the Act, calculating the Long Term Capital Gain earned by the assessee as under and added the same to the total income of the assessee: Calculation of Capital Gain / Loss Amount ... 43697x785/100 = Rs.3,43,021/- Capital Gain on sale of property Rs.1,46,56,979/- (1/3rd share of the assessee) 14656979/3 Rs.48,85,660/- Long Term Capital Gain of the assessee Rs.48,85,660/- ITA No.344/LKW/2023 Page 3 of 7 2.1 The AO also initiated penalty proceedings under section

Anand Mellaram Issrani, Mumbai vs. Asst. Comm. of Income Tax 23(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2916/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Anand Mellaram Issrani, Acit 23(1), 1St Floor, Charishma Chs, Guru Piramal Chambers, Nanak Road, Bandra Vs. Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaapi 1267 K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Haridas BhattFor Respondent: Mr. Pravin Salunkhe, Sr. DR
Section 68Section 69C

adding Rs. 29,556/ u/s 69C of the Act towards commission on of the Act towards commission on alleged bogus Long term capital gains. alleged bogus Long term capital gains. B. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the AO B. On the facts and circumstances ... allegation that the assessee routed unaccounted income tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) on the allegation that the assessee routed unaccounted income through Long-Term Capital Gain (LTCG) in the scrip of Term Capital Gain (LTCG) in the scrip of M/s Action Financial Ser M/s Action Financial Services (India) Ltd. (“AFSIL

Panjavarnam Sivasubramanian, Tirupur vs. The Income Tax Officer, Faceless Assessment

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

ITA 184/CHNY/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Aug 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.M. Siva Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 44ASection 69A

explained to be from sale of land. However, the AO being not satisfied, has added the entire sale consideration of ₹95 lakhs as Long Term Capital Gains (LTCG) on sale of land since assessee failed to establish that the land sold was exempt being agricultural land and also made another ... procedural error made by the staff. He did not fully understand the implications but declared it as exempt income instead of Long-Term Capital Gains. 3. The appellant submitted that following the purchase of the land he made additional investments to enhance its utilization for agricultural activities. His past savings

Shanthi Violet Rodrigues, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1475/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year: 2020-21 Shanthi Violet Rodrigues, The Income Tax Officer, Cp4 Wing-1, 4178, Ward-4(2)(1), Sobha City Casa, Bengaluru. Paradise Enclave, Devin Paradise, Vs. Jalavayuvihar, Bengaluru-560043. Pan No : Avmpr6706M Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, Ca Respondent By : Sri Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate-Standing Counsel For Revenue Date Of Hearing : 21.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.08.2025 O R D E R Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote: This Is An Appeal Filed By Shanthi Violet Rodrigues Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (Nfac) (In Short “Ld. Cit(A)”) Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”) For Asst Year 2020-21 On 05/06/2025 Emanating From Assessment Order Dated 24/02/2025 Passed U/S. 147 R.W.S 144B Of The Act. Submissions Of The Ld. Ar: 2. The Ld. Ar Invited Our Attention To The Assessment Order Dated 24/02/2025 For Asst. Year 2020-21. The Ld. Ar Submitted

For Appellant: Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, CA
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250

term capital gains’. This is incorrect and bad in law as the property was purchased in 2007 and hence the asset qualifies for long term capital gains. Accordingly even for this reason the addition made by the Ld. AO is bad in law. Accordingly, the Ld. AO is directed

Sangeeta Kalpesh Chawalla, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 19(3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 659/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2015-16 Sangeeta Kalpesh Chawalla Ito (Ward 19(3) (2), Mumbai) A 67,Darya Mahal, Behind Ito (Ward 19(3) (2), Matru Walshigaham School, 12Th Floor, Vs. Mandir, Income Tax Office, Napean Sea Road, Mumbai - 400007 Mumbai- 400006 Pan No. Adgpc 0339 M Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Prakash JhunjhunwalaFor Respondent: Mr. Vivek Perampurna, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

that the shares of a so-called "penny stock" company, namely Regency Trust Limited, had been misused for the purpose of generating bogus Long Term Capital Gains (LTCG) and Short Term Capital Losses (STCL). It was further brought to the notice of the Assessing Officer (AO) that the assessee

Bhikhalal Prahaladrai Agarwal HUF, Gandhidham vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Gandhidham Circle, Gandhidham

ITA 780/RJT/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot21 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.779&780/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2016-17) Bhikhalal Prahaladrai Agarwal- Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Huf, Gandhidham Circle C/O. Sarda & Sarda, Sakar, 1St It Office, Plot No. 32, Sector No. 3, Near Floor, Dr. Radha-Krishnan Road, Iffco Colony, Gandhidham Opp. Rajkumar College Rajkot Gandhidham - 370201 Rajkot - 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabha4638R (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vimal Desai, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 05/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 21/08/2025

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Desai, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

Bombay Stock Exchange by a group of persons acting as a syndicate in order to provide entries of tax exempt bogus Long Term Capital Gains to large number of persons (beneficiaries) in lieu of unaccounted cash. The basic objective of this racket is to convert black money into white without ... Corporation Limited" for a total sale consideration of Rs. 27,05,802.74 in FY 2010-11/AY 2011-12. This assessee has shown long term capital gain of Rs.17,33,289/- in return of income of Assessment Year 2011-12. These sale transactions in shares are reportedly bogus transactions

Bhikhalal Prahladrai Agarwal HUF, Gandhidham vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Gandhidham Circle, Gandhidham

ITA 779/RJT/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot21 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.779&780/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2016-17) Bhikhalal Prahaladrai Agarwal- Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Huf, Gandhidham Circle C/O. Sarda & Sarda, Sakar, 1St It Office, Plot No. 32, Sector No. 3, Near Floor, Dr. Radha-Krishnan Road, Iffco Colony, Gandhidham Opp. Rajkumar College Rajkot Gandhidham - 370201 Rajkot - 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabha4638R (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vimal Desai, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 05/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 21/08/2025

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Desai, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

Bombay Stock Exchange by a group of persons acting as a syndicate in order to provide entries of tax exempt bogus Long Term Capital Gains to large number of persons (beneficiaries) in lieu of unaccounted cash. The basic objective of this racket is to convert black money into white without ... Corporation Limited" for a total sale consideration of Rs. 27,05,802.74 in FY 2010-11/AY 2011-12. This assessee has shown long term capital gain of Rs.17,33,289/- in return of income of Assessment Year 2011-12. These sale transactions in shares are reportedly bogus transactions

DCIT, Central Circle-2, Jaipur vs. Kamlaprabha L/H of Late Shri Gopal Lal Ji Goswami, Kota

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the Cross objection of the assessee is disposed off in terms of the observation made herein above

ITA 94/JPR/2025[2014]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Aug 2025

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-Sr.DR a
Section 144Section 153C

learned Assessing Officer also seriously erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in making an addition of Long Term Capital Gains i.e. LTCG of Rs.4,44,60,476 LTCG declared by the assessee was Rs.0 as against that assessed by the Assessing 4 Officer ... Less: A. Cost of acquisition after indexation Rs. 24,72,750 B. Indexed cost of improvement Rs. 5,90,226 Long term capital gain Rs. 1,78,16,024 Deduction u/s 54B Rs. 1,42,87,610 Net long term capital gain

Shiva Corporation (India) Limited, Jaipur vs. Dy. CIT, CC-3, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1219/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Aug 2025AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, C.AFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT, Sr.-DR
Section 143(3)Section 2Section 2(14)

case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the additions of Rs.38,56,889/- made by Ld. AO under are head “long term capital gain” by treating the agriculture lands sold by assessee as urban and capital asset within the meaning of Section 2(14). Appellant prays that land sold ... threshold was not satisfied and subject agriculture land would stand excluded and could not be classified as capital asset - Held, yes - Whether thus, long term capital gains on sale of agriculture land, being not a capital asset could not be brought to tax and addition so made

Laggisetty Manohar Karthik, Chennai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward 15(2), Chennai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 746/CHNY/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 746/Chny/2025 िनधा$रण वष$ / Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 147Section 54Section 80C

nullity in law for want of jurisdiction. 5. The NFAC, Delhi erred in confirming the addition of Rs.1,13,79,142/- as Long-Term Capital Gains accruing in the hands of the appellant in the computation of taxable total income without assigning proper reasons and justification. 6. The NFAC, Delhi ... failed to appreciate that Long Term Capital Gains arising from the sale of the disputed immovable property under consideration was duly reported in the return of income filed in the hands of the HUF having (PAN: AABHL9827P) and ought to have appreciated that the sustenance of the disputed addition