← 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

Sharda Rani Gupta L/H Late Hem Chand Gupta, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward 55(4), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in the terms aforesaid

ITA 2055/DEL/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Apr 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं.2055/िद"ी/2023 (िन.व. 2009-10) Mrs Sharda Rani Gupta, L/H Late Hem Chand Gupta C/O Mr. Sandeep Bhatnagar, C.A, Flat No. 12, 2Nd Floor, Sheel Tara House, 4866/24, Ansari Road, Darya Ganj, New Delhi 110002 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aakpg-2688-Q बनाम Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 55(4), ..... "ितवादी/Respondent D-Block, Vikas Bhawan, New Delhi 110002 अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : None "ितवादी"ारा/Respondent By : Ms. Shivani Bansal, Sr. Dr & Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 10/01/2025 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : : 04/04/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Cit(A)') Dated 18.04.2023, For Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The Appeal Is Time Barred By 29 Days. The Assessee Has Filed An Application Seeking Condonation Of Delay In Filing Of Appeal. After Perusal Of The Same, I Am Satisfied That Delay In Filing Of Appeal Is Not Intentional, But Was For The Reasons

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Shivani Bansal, Sr. DR and Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 254Section 68

respect of unproved creditors; M/s. Viraj Industries Rs.11,74,422/- M/s. Vaibhav Enterprises Rs.17,05,799/- Total Rs.28,80,221/- (ii) Long Term Capital Gain on sale of jewellery Rs.89,557/- 4. Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 30.11.2017 passed u/s. 254/143(3) of the Act, the assessee filed appeal ... original assessment proceedings and the present assessment proceedings, The Ld. AO had taken the cost of acquisition as on 31.03.1987, the resultant Long Term Capital Gain has arisen whereas assessee had declared the Long Term Capital Loss in the ITR. 7. This is to draw your kind attention

Barminco Indian Underground Mining Services LLP, Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-28(1), Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2253/DEL/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Apr 2025AY 2020-21

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