← 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

Bhim Sain Gupta, Delhi vs. Assistant Commisioner of Income Tax, Circle - 47(1), New Delhi

In the result, impugned order is set aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1574/DEL/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanआअसं.1574/ िद"ी /2024 (िन.व. 2010-11) Bhim Sain Gupta, K-736, Gadaipur Road, Mehrauli, Delhi 110030 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Adkpg-7977-R बनाम Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Central Circle-47(1), New Delhi Assessee By : Shri Manish Upneja, Chartered Accountant & Ms. Sanju Kumari, Advocate Department By: Shri Ashish Tripathi, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 16/04/2025 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : : 16/04/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against An Ex-Parte Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [In Short ‘The Cit(A)] Dated 06.03.2024, For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case As Emanating From Records Are: The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income For The Impugned Assessment Year Declaring Loss Of Rs.2,61,92,280/-. Subsequently, Assessment For Ay 2010-11 Was Reopened & Notice U/S. 148 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961(Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Act')

For Appellant: Shri Manish Upneja, Chartered Accountant &For Respondent: Shri Ashish Tripathi, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148

issued to the assessee. The AO made following additions while completing the assessment : i. Rs.1,54,00,000/- under the head Long Term Capital Gains. ii. Rs.2,25,06,975/- after rejecting assessee's claim on cost of improvements. iii. Rs.1,69,10,271/- after rejecting assessee’s claim

Hreyansh Vasundhara Family Trust, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(1), Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1793/PUN/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1793/Pun/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2021-22 Hreyansh Vasundhara Family Trust, S. No. 1A, F-1, Irani Market Compound, Yerwada, Pune – 411006 Vs. Ito, Ward-7(1), Pune Pan : Aabth8220Q अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri C.H. Naniwadekar Department By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 18-06-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 26-06-2025 आदेश / Order Per Astha Chandra, Jm : The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 18.07.2024 Of The Ld. Additional/Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Vadodara [“Addl./Jcit(A)"] Pertaining To Assessment Year ("Ay") 2021-22. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : "In The Fact & The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Addl/Joint Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) -(A)2 Vadodara, Erred In Confirming The Variance In The Intimation U/S 143(1) Made By Cpc In Respect Of The Rate Of Surcharge & Erred: 1. In Not Adjudicating & Hence Confirming That The Ao Cpc Has Power To Vary The Rate Of Surcharge While Processing The Return U/S 143(1). 2. In Holding That In The Case Of The Appellant Provisions Of Section 167B Rws 2(29C) Are Applicable & Therefore The Appellant Is Subjected To Taxation At The Highest Slab Of Income Tax (Including Surcharge) As Applicable For The Given Ay Which Is 37% Surcharge In The Case Of The Appellant For The Given Ay.

For Appellant: Shri C.H. NaniwadekarFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 111ASection 143(1)Section 167BSection 2

income exceeding Rs.5 Crores, rate of surcharge is 37%. For the income earned by way of dividend, short term capital gains u/s 111A, long term capital gains u/s 112 and 112A of the Act, the rate of surcharge is 15%. 9. Analyzing the facts of the present case in light