← 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

Pradeep Kumar Jindal, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 25, New Delhi

Appeals are partly allowed and all the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 8286/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jun 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: : Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Smt. Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 8286 To 8291/Del/2018 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11 To 2015-16) बनाम Pradeep Kumar Jindal Acit F-3/12, Model Town, New Central Circle-25, New Delhi / Vs. Delhi, Delhi, Pin 110009. "ायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan No. : Aaipj8526A (Appellant) .. (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 9095, 4946, 9096 & 4947/Del/2019, (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11, 2012-13, 2015-16 & 2016-17) बनाम Acit M/S. Delta Leasing & Central Circle-25, New Finance Ltd. / Vs. Delhi C-55 F.I.E., Patparganj, East Delhi, New Delhi, Delhi - 110092 "ायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan No. : Aaacd0594K (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Yadav, CIT. DR
Section 132(4)

after routing the money through several layers, the money ultimately reached the real beneficiaries either in the form of share capital or long term capital gains. Accordingly, commission income in the hands of Pradeep Jindal was taxed @2.5% on accommodation entries provided and a rate of 6% applied for commission ... earned on accommodation entries provided by way of long term capital gain. Addition on account of jewellery found during search or on the basis of certain ITA Nos. 8286/Del/2018 & 13 Ors. [Pradeep Kumar Jindal & Ors.] - 4 – documents found was also made in the concerned Assessment Years

Crystal Thermotech Pvt.Ltd., Kolkata vs. Deputy Commissioner Pf Income Tax, Central Circle, Jamshedpur

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

ITA 80/RAN/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi10 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

notice u/s 153A. The assessee also admitted the allegation of the AO regarding certain manipulation in the transaction of shares to earn long term capital gains to buy peace and the income so disclosed in return of income was also accepted by the AO. Subsequently, notice

Crystal Thermotech Pvt.Ltd., Kolkata vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Jamshedpur

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

ITA 79/RAN/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi10 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

notice u/s 153A. The assessee also admitted the allegation of the AO regarding certain manipulation in the transaction of shares to earn long term capital gains to buy peace and the income so disclosed in return of income was also accepted by the AO. Subsequently, notice

Vishwanath Prasad Vishwkarma, Jamshedpur vs. ITO Ward-1(4), Jamshedpur

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 303/RAN/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi10 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: BEFORES/SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Devasis Sannigrahi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Khub Chand Pandya, Sr hri Khub Chand Pandya, Sr DR

consideration of the property was Rs.3,20,00,000/-. It was the submission that the assessee had filed his return of income declaring long term capital gains. In the computation of long term capital gains, the assessee had adopted the fair market value as on 1.4.1981 at Rs.25

Amee Shreyance Shah, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 19(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the above appeal of the assessee is

ITA 2450/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kshatriya, ARFor Respondent: Shri Aditya Rai, (Sr. DR)
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 68

afforded for cross verification/examination of records and third parties. 4) The learned AO erred in not allowing exemption uls.10(38) in respect of long term capital gain on sale of the shares of M/s. Banas Finance Limited even though all the conditions of the said section were complied with ... Section 10(38) of the Income-tax Act, Page | 3 ITA No. 2450/Mum/2024 Α.Υ. 2012-13 Amee Shreyance Shah, Mumbai 1961, for long-term capital gains from the sale of shares of M/s. Banas Finance Limited, despite compliance with all requisite conditions of the section, without any discussion

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Nagpur vs. M/S. Aakar Hotels, Nagpur

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 47/NAG/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur09 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon'Ble & Shri K.M. Roy, Hon'Ble Accountant, Member

Section 147Section 148

facts and in circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs.2,67,14,897/- on account of long term capital gain, without appreciating the fact that the addition of Rs.2,67,14,897/- made by the AO was supported with finding that sale deed/assignment ... circumstances of the case, the Ld CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs.2,67,14,897/- on account of long term capital gain, without considering the fact that the sale deed /assignment deed itself shows complete transfer of property and not a part of property moreover

Iit Investrust Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, 491)(2), Mumbai

ITA 3420/MUM/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jun 2025AY 2008-09
For Respondent: Ms. Vranda Matkari
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 55(2)(ab)

fixed) assets (BSE Card), as mentioned in (7) above. 2. We declared the aforesaid gain of Rs.5,19,00,000 under the head long-term capital gains and paid tax @ 20% on the same. 3. The return of income for assessment year 2008-09 was processed by the Assessing Officer ... Assessing Officer. On their enquiry as to how this figure is arrived at, we looked up the old documents and noticed that the long term capital gains offered by us in assessment year 2008-09 was an inadvertent error inasmuch as the cost of acquisition ought to have been

Kavita Manoj Damani, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officerm Int Tax Ward 2(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2648/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jun 2025AY 2020-21
Section 133(6)Section 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 54Section 64(1)(iv)

appellant but her husband, Mr. Manoj Damani and further erred in denying the exemption u/s.54 to the appellant in respect of the long-term capital gains arising from the sale of that property which has been assessed in the hands of the appellant. 2. On the facts and circumstances ... case and in law, without prejudice to the above, the very fact that the long-term capital gains of ₹ 4,21,83,273 arising from sale of the said property (Flat No. 402A/402B, Glen Classic CHS, Hiranandani Gardens, Powai, Mumbai) has been assessed fully in the hands of the appellant

Seema Srivastava, Patna vs. ITO, Dc/Ac-6, Patna

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 715/PAT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna06 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 250Section 250(2)Section 48Section 54Section 54F

Further, the assessee had claimed deduction of Rs. 2,58,34,383/- u/s 54 of the Act and had shown ‘NIL’ income from long term capital gains on sale of immovable property during the year under consideration. It was also noted that the assessee had received ... ignored. Therefore, this ground is dismissed. 6.1 Ground Nos. 2 & 3 pertain to addition of Rs. 2,58,34,383/- as long term capital gain by disallowing the claim of deduction u/s 54. The details of the order of AO and basis of disallowance discussed in paras

Emerging Markets Index Non-Lendable Fund, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation )-2(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2073/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jun 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Anish Thacker &For Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 270ASection 70Section 70(2)

section 70(3) of the act where assessee suffers long-term capital loss, assessee shall be entitled to set of such losses against long-term capital gains computed in similar manner as provided under section 48 to section 55 of the act. It is clear that section 48 to section ... Rs.117,665,920 as against Rs.111,085,832, determined in the impugned order; 10. Without prejudice to the above, erred in computing long term capital gains chargeable to tax under section 112A at Rs. 3,129,503,989 as against 'NIL' determined in the impugned order; 11. Without prejudice

I Shares Esg Aware Msci Em Etf, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation ) -2(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 2072/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jun 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Anish Thacker &For Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 270ASection 70Section 70(2)

section 70(3) of the act where assessee suffers long-term capital loss, assessee shall be entitled to set of such losses against long-term capital gains computed in similar manner as provided under section 48 to section 55 of the act. It is clear that section 48 to section ... Rs.117,665,920 as against Rs.111,085,832, determined in the impugned order; 10. Without prejudice to the above, erred in computing long term capital gains chargeable to tax under section 112A at Rs. 3,129,503,989 as against 'NIL' determined in the impugned order; 11. Without prejudice

Emerging Markets Equity Index Master Fund, Mumbai vs. Deputy CIT (Int. Tax)-2(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2040/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jun 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Anish Thacker &For Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 270ASection 70Section 70(2)

section 70(3) of the act where assessee suffers long-term capital loss, assessee shall be entitled to set of such losses against long-term capital gains computed in similar manner as provided under section 48 to section 55 of the act. It is clear that section 48 to section ... Rs.117,665,920 as against Rs.111,085,832, determined in the impugned order; 10. Without prejudice to the above, erred in computing long term capital gains chargeable to tax under section 112A at Rs. 3,129,503,989 as against 'NIL' determined in the impugned order; 11. Without prejudice

Madhukar Wadhera, United States of America vs. AO Int Tax Circle 3(1)(1) Del, Civic Centre

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 2220/DEL/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jun 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahmanita No. 2220/Del/2024 : Asstt. Year : 2020-21 Madhukar Wadhera, Vs Assessing Officer, 23, Turf Lane Roslyn Heights, Intl. Tax Circle-3(1)(1), New York, Usa-11577 New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Adrpw7079B Assessee By : Sh. Salil Kapoor & Sh. Tarun Chanana, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Vijay B. Vasanta, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 05.06.2025 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2020-21 Arises Against The Ao, Circle Intl. Tax-3(1)(1), Delhi, Assessment Order Dated 28.06.2023 Framed In Consequence To The Dispute Resolution Panel (“Drp”)-2, New Delhi Directions Dated 08.02.2023, In Proceedings U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Kapoor &For Respondent: Sh. Vijay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 55(2)Section 55(2)(b)

length. Case file perused. 3. It emerges during the course of hearing that the learned lower authorities have computed the assessee’s long term capital gains in his hands amounting to Rs.5,58,88,487/-, in the Assessing Officer’s assessment framed on 28.06.2023 in 2 Madhukar Wadhera question. There ... Block-A, Sushant Lok, Gurgaon having area measuring 782 sq. mtrs. for total consideration of Rs.7,21,00,000/-. All this followed his long term capital gains computation adopting the cost of acquisition thereof i.e. fair market value as on 01.04.2001 u/s 55(2), to the tune of Rs.2

Anand Swarup Mehta, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer(International Tax)-3(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is accordingly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 851/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jun 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 111ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144C(5)

indexation benefit as computed by him and assessee was given indexation benefit from the date of possession of the dwelling house. Therefore the long term capital gains allowed was only to the extent of Rs. 2,76,29,385/- added to the total income of the assessee. The income ... Particulars of Income | Amount (In Rs.) | Amount (in Rs.) | |---|---|---|---| | 1. | Income from House property | | 22,40,000 | | 2. | Income from Capital Gains | | | | a) Long Term Capital Gains | | 2,76,29,385 | | | (On sale of property) | | | | b) Short Term Capital Gain u/s 111A | 3,798 | 2,76,33,183 | | 3. | Income

Smt. Soni Sonu Mirchandani, Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-5, New Delhi

Appeal are dismissed

ITA 2325/DEL/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jun 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 2325/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Smt. Soni Sonu Mirchandani, Vs Acit, F-166, Malcha Marg, Anand Central Circle-5, Niketan, New Delhi-110021 New Delhi-110005 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaqpm7786H Assessee By: None Revenue By : Sh. Akhilesh Kumar Yadav, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 04.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 04.06.2025 Order This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2009-10, Arises Against The Cit(A)-24, New Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Apl/M/250/2024-25/1073130044(1) Dated 11.02.2025, In Proceedings U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Akhilesh Kumar Yadav, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 45Section 48

field return of income on 28.07.2009 declaring an income of Rs.92,15,12,886/-. In the return of income, the appellant had shown Long term capital gains of Rs.92,33,99,485/-. Later on the case was selected for scrutiny and the assessment was completed ... Explanation (iii) to Sec. 48 of the Act. ii. Rs.45,00,000/- was taxed in the hands of the assessee as Long term capital gain u/s 45 of the Act received indirectly on relinquishment of her right to manage Monica Electronics Ltd and Onida Saka Ltd. 4.2 Aggrieved

Rekhaben Jitendrakumar Jain, Ahura Nagar Society vs. PCIT, Aayakar Bhavan

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 592/SRT/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat03 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: S/Shri Sanjay Garg & Bijayananda Prusethassessment Year : 2013-14 Rekhaben Jitendrakumar Jain, The Pr.Commissioner Of 255-257, Ahura Nagar Society Vs Income Tax-1 Adajan. Surat. Pan : Adypj 6066 G (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca : Shri Ashish Pophara, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 05/03/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 03/06/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg

Section 10(38)Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

listed company, it was found that share of the said company had been rigged in synchronized way to provide accommodation entry of bogus long term capital gain to various beneficiaries. The ld.Pr.CIT observed that Indian Infotech & Software limited (INDINFO) was a Shell Company, having no financial credentials and has already ... unaccounted income, and that the transactions carried through the said scrip were in the nature mere accommodation entries in the form of bogus long term capital gains (LTCG) which was claimed tax exempt under section 10(38) of the Act. 3 He observed that the AO in the assessment proceedings

Gill & Virk Finance Company Limited, Chandigarh vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 5(1), Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 936/CHANDI/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sanjay Gargआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.936/Chd/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 बनाम Gill & Virk Finance The Ito, Company Limited, Ward (5)1, Sco 80-81, 3Rd Floor, Sector Chandigarh. 17-C, Chandigarh. 160017. "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aaacg8596L अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ"/Respondent ( Physical Hearing ) िनधा""रतीकीओरसे/Assessee By : Sh.T.N.Singla, C.A. राज"कीओरसे/ Revenue By : Sh.Vivek Vardhan, Addl. Cit.Sr.Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27-05-2025. उदघोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30-05-2025 आदेश/Order The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 19-07-2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax, National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi[Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’], For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Is Aggrieved By The Action Of The Cit(A) In Confirming The Additon Made By The Assessing Officer (A.O.) Of Rs. 5,46,809/-

For Appellant: Sh.T.N.Singla, C.AFor Respondent: Sh.Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT.Sr.Dr
Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 154

wrongly upheld addition made by the Assessing Officer of Rs. 4,68,665/- on the account of exempt Long Term Capital Gain. 5. That the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly upheld addition made by the Assessing Officer of Rs. 20,650/- on account of exempt Dividend. 6. That ... processed u/s143(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act. The CPC Bangalore has made a disallowance of Rs. 4,58,665/- on Long Term Capital Gains earned on the sale of shares. The assessee has claimed it as exempt under Section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act. This

Navansh Vinimay Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 8(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 724/KOL/2022[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 May 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250

price is doubtful. The persons selling the scrip when the price of scrip is high at its peak are all beneficiaries of bogus Long Term Capital Gains. The Exit Providers were not able to provide any logical explanation of the source of funds they have invested in the scrip when ... ITAT in the case of Sujata Agarwal vs. ITO in ITA No. 1682/Kol/2019 dated 17.10.2022 dealing with the similar type of issue regarding long term capital gain from dealing in the penny stock company namely M/s. Kailash Auto Finance Ltd., dismissed the assessee’s appeal following the judgment

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 1(3), Chennai vs. M. Mahadevan, Chennai

ITA 1826/CHNY/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 May 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1824/Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2013-14 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1825/Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2014-15 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1826/Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2019-20 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Chennai. M.Mahadevan, No.24, Park Avenue Street, Shenoy Nagar, Chennai-600 030. [Pan: Aajpm5888R] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Shri G.Gireesh, C.A प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Ms.C.Vatchala, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08.04.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.05.2025 आदेश / Order Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M : The Below Mentioned Appeals Have Been Filed By The Appellant Revenue For Ay-2013-14, Ay-2014-15 & 2019-20 Contesting The Order Of Ld. First Appellate Authority Indicated Column-E, Herein Below:- S. No. A Appeal Nos. B Ays C Appellant D Cit(A) Order Details E Respondent F 1

For Respondent: Ms.C.Vatchala, CIT

declared global income in the tax returns filed in any country. 3. The Id. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made towards Long Term Capital Gains of Rs.2,94,33,160/- without appreciating that the transfer of shares at face value don't represent the real and actual Page ... consideration received by the assessee indirectly for transfer of his shares. 3.1 The Id. CITA) has erred in deleting the addition made towards Long Term Capital Gains of Rs.2,94,33,160/- without appreciating the facts and evidence on record and disregarding the finding of the AO that the transaction

Deputy Commissioner of Inocme Tax, Central Circle - 1(3), Chennai vs. M. Mahadevan, Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are decided as under:-

ITA 1825/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1824/Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2013-14 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1825/Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2014-15 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1826/Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri G.Gireesh, C.AFor Respondent: Ms.C.Vatchala, CIT

declared global income in the tax returns filed in any country. 3. The ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made towards Long Term Capital Gains of Rs.2,94,33,160/- without appreciating that the transfer of shares at face value don't represent the real and actual Page ... consideration received by the assessee indirectly for transfer of his shares. 3.1 The ld. CITA) has erred in deleting the addition made towards Long Term Capital Gains of Rs.2,94,33,160/- without appreciating the facts and evidence on record and disregarding the finding of the AO that the transaction