← 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

Bipinbhai Chhaganbhai Jodhani, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 3(3)(1), Surat

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

ITA 919/SRT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat03 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.919/Srt/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Bipinbhai Chhaganbhai The Ito बनाम/ Jodhani Ward-3(3)(1) 21, Swetrajhans Society Surat – 395 001 V/S. Khodiyar Nagar Road Varachha Road Surat – 395 006 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Addpj 9297 Q (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mehul Patel, Ar Revenue By : Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 07/04/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 03/07/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Dated 28/06/2024 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-2018. Bipinbhai Chhaganbhai Jodhani Vs. Ito Asst. Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Patel, ARFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr.DR
Section 24Section 24bSection 250Section 48

confirming the disallowance of claim of Indexed cost of Improvement of Rs.30,01,463/- made u/s 48 of the Act, while computing the Long Term Capital Gains. (2) That on facts, in law, and on evidence on record, it ought to have been held that the appellant has not claimed

Annu Anil Agrawal, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle 4(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5473/MUM/2024[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jul 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankarआयकर अपील सुं./Ita No. 5473/Mum/2024 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2011-12) Annu Anil Agrawal V/S. Acit Cc 4(3), Mumbai Due C-3401/3402 Oberoi बिाम To Restructuring Current Esquire, Mohan Gokhale Jurisdiction Of Appellant Road, Off W. E. Highway, Lies With Acit 41(4)(1), Oberoi Garden City, Mumbai Goregaon East, Mumbai- Kautilya Bhawan, Bkc, 400063 Bandra (E), Mumbai- 400051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Admpa0248F Appellant/अपीलार्थी Respondent/प्रनिवादी ..

For Appellant: Shri Suchek Anchaliya, Ms. RubyFor Respondent: Shri Aditya Rai
Section 10(38)Section 250Section 68Section 69

shares of M/s. JMD Telefilms Ltd. and 368 shares of Adani Power Ltd., and as a result of which the assessee earned long-term capital gain (LTCG) of Rs. 6,59,65,834/-, which have been claimed as exempt income u/s 10(38) of the Act in her return ... made by the A.R. of the assessee during the course of the assessment proceedings for justification of assessee appellant claim with respect to Long Term Capital Gain from the sales of Shares of M/s. JMD Telefilms Limited. 5. Appellant contends that, Assessing Officer and Appellate Authority has outrightly rejected appellant