← 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

Arthi Baliga, Chennai vs. ACIT, NFAC, Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1559/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1559/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Arthi Baliga, Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of No. 15, Flat No. 3-C, Coral Woods Income Tax, Chennai-4, Apartment, Sri Ram Nagar, South Chennai. Street, Alwarpet, Chennai 600 018. [Pan:Bkjpb5416P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Ravi Kannan, Advocate & Shri Varun Ranganathan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 05.12.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.02.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 19.03.2024 Passed By The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Chennai-4, Chennai For The Assessment Year 2017-18 Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Kannan, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

death of Shri Mahesh Baliga, the return of income filed by the partnership firm for AY 2017-18 taking into account long term capital gain is ab initio void/ 20 I.T.A. No.1559/Chny/24 infructuous. Further, he observed that the Assessing Officer made addition in the case of two other legal heirs ... PCIT are similar to the submissions made before us by the ld. AR. We find the ld. PCIT acknowledged offering of long term capital gains in the hands of the partnership firm and held that the said capital gains were required to be taxed in the hands of surviving partner

Smt. Jayanthi Seeman, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw - 1 (2), Chennai

ITA 773/CHNY/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S.R.Raghunatha, Hon'Bleआयकर अपील सं/.Ita Nos.: 770, 771, 772 & 773/Chny/2020 निर्धा रणवर्ष / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Smt. Jayanthi Seeman, C/O. Aparna Nandakumar, Advocate & Tax Consultant, J Nandakumar & Poojesh J (Advocates) No. 6, Ramakrishna Street, T.Nagar, Chennai – 600 017. [Pan: Acypj-0739-K] (अपीलार्थी/Assessee) अपीलार्थीकीओरसे/Assessee By प्रत्यर्थीकीओरसे/Respondent By सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement Income Tax Officer, Non-Corporate Ward -1(2), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Shri. Y. Sridhar, Fca Shri. R. Raghupathy, Addl.Cit 20.02.2025 28.02.2025 आदेश/Order Per S. R. Raghunatha: These Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 2, Chennai, All Dated 30.07.2020 For The Assessment Years 2010-11 To 2013-14.

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 69

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “ए” न्यायपीठ चेन्नई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL `A' BENCH, CHENNAI श्री एबी टी. वर्की

Smt. Jayanthi Seeman, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw - 1 (2), Chennai

ITA 772/CHNY/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S.R.Raghunatha, Hon'Bleआयकर अपील सं/.Ita Nos.: 770, 771, 772 & 773/Chny/2020 निर्धा रणवर्ष / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Smt. Jayanthi Seeman, C/O. Aparna Nandakumar, Advocate & Tax Consultant, J Nandakumar & Poojesh J (Advocates) No. 6, Ramakrishna Street, T.Nagar, Chennai – 600 017. [Pan: Acypj-0739-K] (अपीलार्थी/Assessee) अपीलार्थीकीओरसे/Assessee By प्रत्यर्थीकीओरसे/Respondent By सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement V. Income Tax Officer, Non-Corporate Ward -1(2), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Shri. Y. Sridhar, Fca Shri. R. Raghupathy, Addl.Cit 20.02.2025 28.02.2025 आदेश/Order Per S. R. Raghunatha: These Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 2, Chennai, All Dated 30.07.2020 For The Assessment Years 2010-11 To 2013-14.

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 69

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “ए” न्यायपीठ चेन्नई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL `A' BENCH, CHENNAI श्री एबी टी. वर्की

ITO, Ward- 24(3), New Delhi vs. Sudarshan Buildtech Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 4947/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Feb 2025AY 2007-08

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

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Mulliambal Rathnasamy Pitchakannu Eraavanan, Chennai

In the result, both the appeal filed by the Revenue and the Cross

ITA 1810/CHNY/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Feb 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1810/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 & C.O. No. 74/Chny/2024 [In Ita No. 1810/Chny/2024] The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Shri Arvind E & Mrs. Baskaravalli Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), (Legal Heir Of Late Shri Mrp Investigation Building, Eraavanan), No. 4, Rice Mill Road, Chennai. Erimedu, Ramanathapuram, Coimbatore 641 045. [Pan:Aaape5554D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sundar Rajan, Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri C. Khathiravan, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 11.02.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26.02.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30.04.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Chennai-19, Chennai For The Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Dr Shri S. Sundar Rajan, Cit Drew Our Attention To Additional Grounds Raised By The Appellant – Revenue. He Submits That The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Is Erroneous On Facts Of The Case

For Appellant: Shri S. Sundar Rajan, CITFor Respondent: Shri C. Khathiravan, Advocate
Section 159Section 2

account of old age and illiness. The AO completed the assessment by disallowing the benefit of Cost of Indexation and the Long Term Capital Gain arising out of sale proceeds of Rs. 9,58,38,600/- in the hands of Shri. R. Thangarajan Nadar was assessed protectively in the hands ... details of purchase deed and other details were furnished by the assessee, the benefit of Cost Inflation Index is not provided. Hence, Long Term Capital Gains arising out of the sale proceeds of Rs. 9,58,38,600/- in the hands of Mr. Thangarajan Nadar was assessed protectively