← 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

Vijetha Donthiri, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle-2(4), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1355/HYD/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1355/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2019-20) Vijetha Donthiri, Asst. Commissioner Of Income Vs. Hyderabad. Tax, Central Circle 2(4), Pan:Alqpd4873P Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri M.V. Prasad, C.A. रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Gurpreet Singh, Sr-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/ 05/08/2025 Date Of Hearing: घोर्णध की तधरीख/ 20/08/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Vijetha Donthiri (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Hyderabad (“Ld. Cit(A)”), Dated 29.11.2024 For The A.Y. 2019-20. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Prasad, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Gurpreet Singh, SR-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153C

After pursuing the submission of the assessee, the Ld. AO reworked the assessee’s Long Term Capital Gains on sale of land by considering the alleged on-money as additional consideration. Accordingly, the Ld. AO completed the assessment under section 153C read with section ... evidences the alleged on-money receipt of Rs.90 lakhs on sale of her land. 9. Further, we also found that the reworking of Long Term Capital Gains by the Ld. AO is based solely on the statement of the assessee’s husband, which is a third-party statement. No corroborative

Narayanan, Chromepet vs. Income Tax Officer, Chennai

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

ITA 695/CHNY/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Aug 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.695/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 Narayanan, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, F-1, 37/60, Guru Balaji Apts, International Taxation Ward 2(1), First Main Road, New Colony, Chennai. Chromepet, Chennai 600 044. [Pan:Ackpn6481A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : None ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 24.07.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 20.08.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 06.01.2025 Passed By The Income Tax Officer, International Taxation Ward 2(1), Chennai Under Section 147 R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. When The Appeal Was Taken Up For Hearing On 24.07.2025, We Find No Representation On Behalf Of The Assessee. However, We Find Paper

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144C(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69

substantiate his claim of payment of brokerage for ₹.1,30,000/-. As per the directions of the DRP, the Assessing Officer computed the long term capital gains at ₹.5,69,344/- and brought to tax and completed the assessment under section 147 r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Act dated ... against the returned income of ₹.35,013/-. The said draft order was challenged before the DRP. The assessee filed details relating to long term capital gains before the DRP. Having not filed before the AO/TPO, the DRP sought remand report from the AO/TPO. The TPO filed remand report

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Niranjan Koirala, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2253/DEL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Aug 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआअसं.2253/िद"ी/2010(िन.व. 2006-07) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-31(1), R. No. 1405, 14Th Floor, E-2 Block, Pratyakshkar Bhawan, Civic Centre, Jln Marg, ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant New Delhi बनाम Vs. Niranjan Koirala, 27, Akbar Road, New Delhi ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Pan: Aaupk-0483-B Assessee By : Shri Tarandeep Singh, Advocate Department By : Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 23.05.2025 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : : 19.08.2025 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Xxx, New Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Cit(A)') Dated 18.02.2010, For Assessment Year 2006-07. 2. This Appeal Was Decided By The Tribunal Vide Order Dated 20.07.2018. Thereafter, The Revenue Filed Miscellaneous Application Seeking Rectification In The Order Of Tribunal On The Ground That The Additional Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Revenue Vide Application Dated 13.08.2014 Remained To Be Decided. The Tribunal In Ma No. 732/Del/2018 Vide Order Dated 10.07.2023 Recalled The Order

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 54F

acre) from M/s. DLF Universal Ltd. amounting to Rs.26,90,82,126/-. (viii) Benefits of section 54F are available on the long term capital gains arising on the sale of original asset which should not be a residential house. ix) Since the assessee was residing in an old house ... therefore disallowed. On this account, an addition of Rs. 10,51,01,820/- is made to the income of the assessee from 'long term capital gains'. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)© of the I.T.Act, 1961 are being initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.” 7. Aggrieved by the assessment

Venkatraman Jayashree Priyadharshini, Chennai vs. ACIT, Ncc-3, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 64/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.64/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 Venkatraman Jayashree Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Priyadharshini, No. 8/5, Income Tax, Rajaji 1St Street, Lake Area, Non Corporate Circle 3(1), Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034. Chennai. [Pan:Adapj3317L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Y. Sridhar, F.C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita, Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 05.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18.08.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 26.03.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Assessee Raised 5 Grounds Of Appeal Amongst Which, The Only Issue Emanates For Our Consideration As To Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified In Giving Relief To The Extent Of ₹.88,85,000/- Under Section 54 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short]

For Appellant: Shri Y. Sridhar, F.C.AFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl.CIT
Section 54Section 54F

record. We note that the assessee filed return of income declaring total income of ₹.1,41,02,880/- including the claim of long term capital gains at ₹.1,37,10,855/-. The Assessing Officer determined the same at ₹.2,87,30,855/-. The ld. CIT(A) restricted the long term ... entertain further plea of the assessee. 6. As discussed above, we note from the computation made by the ld. CIT(A) to restrict long term capital gains to the extent of ₹.2,01,70,855/- as against ₹.2,87,30,855/- made by the Assessing Officer by giving benefit relating

Payal Kishore Kulchandani, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 22(2)(5), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3647/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सुं./Ita No. 3647/Mum/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-2013) Payal Kishore Kulchandani V/S. Income Tax Officer 1201, Badrinath, Opp. Khar बिाम Ward22(2)(5), Gymkhana, 15Th Road, Mumbai Khar West, Mumbai 400052. Piramal Chamber, Lalbaug,Parel, Mumbai - 400012. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aappk0518C Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवादी निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee By: Shri Vijay Mehta राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Shri Virabhadra S. Mahajan

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra S. Mahajan
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 54

return declaring total income of Rs.4,03,770/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and statutory notices were issued. The assessee had claimed Long Term Capital Gains (LTCG) of Rs.91,33,892/- on sale of old flat which was claimed as exempt u/s.54 of the Income ... years after the transfer, the intention of the Legislature is to give him relief in the matter of payment of tax on the long-term capital gain. If a person, who gets some excess amount upon transfer of his old residential premises and thereafter purchases or constructs a new premises

DCIT, Circle-I, Ludhiana vs. Hemant Sood (HUF), Ludhiana

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 890/CHANDI/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 890/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Deputy Commissioner Of M/S Hemant Sood Income Tax, Circle-1, बनाम (Huf), Ludhiana. H.No 417-2, Sohi Vs. Street, College Road, Ludhiana. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aadhh2051P अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent ( Physical Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By: Sh. Ashwani Kumar, Ca राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. Cit Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 24.06.2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11.08.2025 आदेश/Order Per Krinwant Sahay, Am: Appeal In This Case Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 24-06-2024 Of Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi.

For Appellant: Sh. Ashwani Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT Sr.DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

generation of bogus LTCG manipulation of the share prices of M/S Virtual Global Education Limited, with a view to record fictitious Long Term Capital Gains of Rs. 2,37,85,131/- claiming these as exempt from taxation. (ii) That the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi erred on facts ... NFAC, Delhi erred on facts and law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of exemption u/s 10(38) of Long Term Capital Gains of Rs. 2,37,85,131/- overlooking the fact that the entire transaction were stage managed with the object to facilitate the assessee