← 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

Hemant Dahyalal Bhatt, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 6(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee for assessment years 2012–13 to 2016–17 are allowed, and appeals for assessment years 2017–18 and 2018–19 are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7908/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 10(14)Section 10(14)(ii)Section 144Section 153ASection 24

Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the addition of INR 2,35,939 comprising dividend income of INR 55,645 and long-term capital gains of INR 1,80,294 under the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2013-14 The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred ... Appeals) has erred in confirming C the addition of INR 2,51,086 comprising a dividend income of INR 52,082 and long-term capital gains of INR 1,99,004 under the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2014-15 The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred

Hemant Dahyalal Bhatt, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 6(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee for assessment years 2012–13 to 2016–17 are allowed, and appeals for assessment years 2017–18 and 2018–19 are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7907/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 10(14)Section 10(14)(ii)Section 144Section 153ASection 24

Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the addition of INR 2,35,939 comprising dividend income of INR 55,645 and long-term capital gains of INR 1,80,294 under the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2013-14 The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred ... Appeals) has erred in confirming C the addition of INR 2,51,086 comprising a dividend income of INR 52,082 and long-term capital gains of INR 1,99,004 under the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2014-15 The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred

Shaik Afsar Hussain, Kurnool vs. ITO., Ward-1, Kurnool

ITA 1293/HYD/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Feb 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO (Vice President), SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Mohd. Afzal, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR

nearest Municipality, therefore, erred in confirming the order of the Assessing Officer wherein an amount of Rs.53,97,288/-is treated as long term capital gains. 3. The learned Commissioner ought to have appreciated that the subject land sold by the assessee along with three others is in the nature ... therefore, the learned CIT erred in confirming the order of the Assessing Officer wherein an amount of Rs.53,97,288/- is treated as long term capital gains. 4. The learned Appellate Commissioner erred in confirming the order of the Assessing Officer, wherein, an amount of Rs.53,97,288/-is determined

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 32, Kolkata vs. Roselife Enclave LLP, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1666/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Feb 2026AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Akkal Duddhewala &For Respondent: Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, DR
Section 10(38)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 56(1)

several tranches for a total consideration of Rs.10,90,17,795/-, in respect of which, it had claimed exempt long term capital gains of Rs.9,48,97,795/- u/s 10(38) of the Act. Upon enquiry from the Id. AO, the assessee had submitted that, these shares were acquired ... from the total sales proceeds of Rs.10,90,17,795/-, the assessee claimed exemption u/s 10(38) of the Act in respect of long term capital gains of Rs.9,48,97,795/- [Rs.10,90,19,795 (-) Rs.1,41,20,000]. The Id. AO, in the course of assessment, had issued

Hasmukh Ugarchand Gadhecha, HUF, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-5(2)(2), Ahmedabad

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 591/AHD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.591/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2013-14 Hasmukh Ugarchand The Ito बनाम/ Gadhecha, Huf Ward-5(2)(2) V/S. 3Rd Floor, Anjalee House Ahmedabad – 380 015 Cg Road Navrangpura Ahmedabad – 380 009 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaahg 7194 K (अपीलाथ$/ Appellant) (%& यथ$/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Deepak R. Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Hargovind Singh, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/02/2026 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 26/12/2025 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2013-2014. 2. The Assessee, In This Appeal, Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: Hasmukh Ugarchand Gadhecha, Huf Vs. Ito Asstt.Year : 2013-14 2 “1. That The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Law & In The Facts Of The Case In Confirming The Order Of The Ao In Reopening Assessment U/S.147 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Deepak R. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Hargovind Singh, Sr.DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 250Section 68Section 69C

25/07/2013 declaring total income of Rs.3,37,840/-. In the said return of income, the assessee has claimed Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) of Rs.1,83,67,048/- and claimed the same as exempt u/s.10(38) of the Act. The said return was scrutinized u/s.143 ... found that Shri Shirish Chandra Shah was engaged in providing accommodation entries of share capital, share premium share application money, unsecured loans, long term capital gains, short term capital gain/loss, trading loss etc. On analysis of the trade data and information, it was seen that the assessee had purchased/ sold

Kishore Anand Shetty, Goregaon East Mumbai vs. Circle 32(2), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed in terms indicated above

ITA 4975/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 50CSection 54F

learned CIT(A), are that the assessee had sold an industrial property (Gala) by way of a registered deed dated 02.09.2013, on which long- term capital gain was declared at ₹1,40,18,317/-. Against such capital gain, the assessee claimed deduction/exemption under section 54F, in respect of a residential ... industrial premises at Vasai under an agreement dated 02.09.2013, and the assessee had 32% share in such industrial premises. The working of the long-term capital gains as declared by the assessee, and as noted to be undisputed by the Assessing Officer, is as under. (i) Sale of industrial premises

Kishore Anand Shetty, Mumbai vs. Circle-32(2), Mumbai

ITA 4974/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Feb 2026AY 2014-15
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 50CSection 54F

learned CIT(A), are that the assessee had sold an industrial property (Gala) by way of a registered deed dated 02.09.2013, on which long- term capital gain was declared at ₹1,40,18,317/-. Against such capital gain, the assessee claimed deduction/exemption under section 54F, in respect of a residential ... industrial premises at Vasai under an agreement dated 02.09.2013, and the assessee had 32% share in such industrial premises. The working of the long-term capital gains as declared by the assessee, and as noted to be undisputed by the Assessing Officer, is as under. (i) Sale of industrial premises

Camtech Engineers Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4715/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Ashok BansalFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, Sr.DR
Section 147Section 50C

being the market value of immoveable property sold by the assessee under the head ‘Long Term Capital Gains', considering the cost of acquisition at NIL. The assessee thereafter, carried the matter in appeal before the Ld.CIT(A), who has since dismissed the appeal of the assessee and against the said ... year 2001 for Rs. 55,72,000/- and indexed cost of which was around Rs. 1,41,52,880/- and on that basis, Long Term Capital Gain comes to only Rs. 12,19,120/- and the assessee is willing to deposit the taxes thereon. It was submitted that even during

Bajaj Consultants Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 4(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2676/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Ms. Srushti ChawdaFor Respondent: 17/12/2025
Section 14A

long claimed exempt under section 10(15)(iv)(h) of the Act; and (iii) long term capital gains of term capital gains of ₹4,73,00,987/- claimed exempt under section claimed exempt under section 10(38) of the Act. 2.3 The assessee submitted that it The assessee submitted that

Sumanth Badiga, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle - 5(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 628/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita.No.628/Hyd/2025 Assessment Year 2020-2021 Sumanth Badiga, The Dcit, Circle-5(1), Hyderabad – 500 004. Vs. Hyderabad. Telangana. Telangana. Pan Ahqpb8508F (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धारिती द्वधिध/Assessee By : Ca C S Subrahmanyam & Sri V. Siva Kumar, Advocate िधजस् व द्वधिध/Revenue By : Sri Lv Bhaskara Reddy, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधिीख/Date Of Hearing: 02.02.2026 घोषणध की तधिीख/Pronouncement: 06.02.2026 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Rao:

For Appellant: CA C S Subrahmanyam and Sri V. Siva Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri LV Bhaskara Reddy, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54Section 54F

assessee is an individual and NRI and filed her return of income for the year under consideration on 11.09.2020 declaring total income [long term capital gains] of Rs.9,97,46,100/- after claiming deduction u/sec.54 of the Income Tax [in short “ the Act”], 4 ITA.No.628/Hyd./2025 ... record, the Pr. CIT noted that the assessee has claimed deduction of Rs.1,00,92,000/- u/sec.54F of the Act against the long term capital gains which is not allowable if the assessee owns more than one residential house other than the new house as on the date of transfer

Ashwitha Reddy Baddam, Nizamabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Nizamabad

ITA 1066/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

transferred to the builder in pursuant to receipt of super built up area. In response, the assessee submitted that the appellant has computed long term capital gains, in pursuant to Joint Development Agreement in the F.Y.2012-13, relevant to A.Y.2013- 14, where the appellant has estimated the sale consideration of Rs.700 ... explanation of the assessee and adopted cost of acquisition of Rs.160/- per SFT which works out to Rs.3,50,400/- and computed the long term capital gains of Rs.23,37,600/- and arrived at 1/3rd share at Rs.7,79,200/- and made additions of Rs.5,78,170/- after reducing amount

Mohan Reddy Gaddam, Nizamabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Nizamabad

ITA 1065/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

transferred to the builder in pursuant to receipt of super built up area. In response, the assessee submitted that the appellant has computed long term capital gains, in pursuant to Joint Development Agreement in the F.Y.2012-13, relevant to A.Y.2013- 14, where the appellant has estimated the sale consideration of Rs.700 ... explanation of the assessee and adopted cost of acquisition of Rs.160/- per SFT which works out to Rs.3,50,400/- and computed the long term capital gains of Rs.23,37,600/- and arrived at 1/3rd share at Rs.7,79,200/- and made additions of Rs.5,78,170/- after reducing amount

Gaddam Mohan Reddy, Nizamabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Nizamabad

ITA 1064/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

transferred to the builder in pursuant to receipt of super built up area. In response, the assessee submitted that the appellant has computed long term capital gains, in pursuant to Joint Development Agreement in the F.Y.2012-13, relevant to A.Y.2013- 14, where the appellant has estimated the sale consideration of Rs.700 ... explanation of the assessee and adopted cost of acquisition of Rs.160/- per SFT which works out to Rs.3,50,400/- and computed the long term capital gains of Rs.23,37,600/- and arrived at 1/3rd share at Rs.7,79,200/- and made additions of Rs.5,78,170/- after reducing amount

Gaddam Mohan Reddy, Nizamabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Nizamabad

ITA 1063/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

transferred to the builder in pursuant to receipt of super built up area. In response, the assessee submitted that the appellant has computed long term capital gains, in pursuant to Joint Development Agreement in the F.Y.2012-13, relevant to A.Y.2013- 14, where the appellant has estimated the sale consideration of Rs.700 ... explanation of the assessee and adopted cost of acquisition of Rs.160/- per SFT which works out to Rs.3,50,400/- and computed the long term capital gains of Rs.23,37,600/- and arrived at 1/3rd share at Rs.7,79,200/- and made additions of Rs.5,78,170/- after reducing amount

Pradip Kumar Roy, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3)(7), Hmt Bhavan, Bellary Road

The Appeal is allowed and addition is restricted to the extent of Rs

ITA 2270/BANG/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Feb 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice –Assessment Year : 2011-12 Shri Pradip Kumar Roy, Flat Number B705, The Income Tax Officer, Mantri Tranquil, Ward-5(3)(7), Off Kanakapura Road, Gubbalala, Vs. Bengaluru. Bengaluru, Karnataka – 560 061. Pan: Acxpr1547G Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Praveen Kumar, CA
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 54Section 68Section 69A

Noorjahan [237 ITR 570 (SC)). 3. The addition results in double taxation, as the AO has already accepted the computation of long-term capital gain on the full sale price of ₹ 61,00,000/-(net of cost & investment u/s 54), and simultaneously treated part of the same receipt as unexplained ... above consideration, Assessee has purchased an apartment at Kanakapura Road on 15.10.2010 for Rs. 23,00,000/-. Assessee further submitted the computation of Long Term Capital Gain as well as exemption claim u/s. 54. The Ld. Assessing Officer found that the computation of capital gain is correct and accepted

M/S. Topgrain Corporate Service Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 4(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2276/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Feb 2026AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar (Accountant Member), Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey (Judicial Member)

Section 10Section 10(34)Section 10(38)Section 11Section 115JSection 12Section 14Section 14ASection 234BSection 234C

115JB and the assessee claimed dividend income of Rs. 3,50,721/- u/s 10(34) and Long Term Capital Gains (LTCG) on shares of Rs. 4,50,13,857/- u/s 10(38) as exempt income. We also find that the total expenses claimed by the assessee during the year amounted

Zafar Iqbal, Siliguri vs. DCIT, Circle - 1, Siliguri

ITA 1170/KOL/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Feb 2026AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 54F

noted that the assessee had sold his landed properties measuring 3.55 acres for ₹4,17,50,000/- on which Long Term Capital Gain of ₹3,06,35,864/- had accrued to him. The assessee had purchased a new house property for ₹3,13,62,500/- and had also claimed exemption ... denied the exemption on the ground that the assessee did not keep the amount of Long Term Capital Gain in Capital Gain Account Scheme, 1988, before the date of filing of return u/s 139(1) of the Act. The Ld. AO was also of the view that the amount paid

Ncr Warehousing Private Limited, Gurugram vs. CIT Appeal, National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC)

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

ITA 6307/DEL/2025[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Feb 2026AY 2022-2023

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Smt. Renu Jauhri, Hon’Ble

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 250

assessee company filed return for A.Y. 2022-23 on 01.09.2022, declaring income of Rs. 6,16,630/-. Assessment was completed after recomputing the Long Term Capital Gains at Rs. 6,04,40,934/-, after rejecting the assessee’s claim regarding cost of construction/improvement which were not substantiated. Assessment was completed

Mukesh Agarwal, Rourkela vs. Income Tax Office, Ward 1, Rourkela

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 631/CTK/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack04 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.631/Ctk/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2015-2016) Mukesh Agarwal, Vs Ito Ward-1, Rourkela O-18, Civil Township, Rourkela-769004 Pan No. : Adipa 0575 D (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Ayush Agarwal, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 04/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 04/02/2026 आदेश / O R D E R Per George Mathan, Jm :

For Appellant: Shri Ayush Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)

assessee received shares of Kailash Auto Finance Ltd. It was submission that the exemption u/s. 10(38) of the Act in respect of long term capital gains arising on the sale of shares of Kailash Auto Financial Ltd. was now squarely covered by the decision of the coordinate bench

Puja Agarwal, Rourkela vs. ITO Ward 1, Rourkela

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 628/CTK/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack04 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.628/Ctk/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2015-2016) Puja Agarwal, Vs Ito Ward-1, Rourkela O-18, Civil Township, Rourkela-769004 Pan No. : Agwpa 5744 K (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Ayush Agarwal, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 04/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 04/02/2026 आदेश / O R D E R Per George Mathan, Jm :

For Appellant: Shri Ayush Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)

assessee received shares of Kailash Auto Finance Ltd. It was submission that the exemption u/s. 10(38) of the Act in respect of long term capital gains arising on the sale of shares of Kailash Auto Financial Ltd. was now squarely covered by the decision of the coordinate bench