← 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

Neeraj Bhardwaj, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 39(1), New Delhi

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 1086/DEL/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. M. Balaganeshita No. 1086/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Neeraj Bhardwaj, Vs Income Tax Officer, H.No. 314, Main Chowk, Near Pnb, Ward-39(1), Burari, Delhi-110084 New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Apdpb0280P Assessee By : Sh. Tushal Gupta, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Akhilesh Kumar Yadav, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 05.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 13.12.2024 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2014-15, Arises Against The Cit(A)-13, Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Apl/S/250/2019-20/1024600279(1) Dated 03.02.2020 In Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: Sh. Tushal Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Akhilesh Kumar Yadav, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 149Section 150(1)Section 150(2)Section 250Section 251(1)Section 54

Rs.1,54,60,000/-. The admitted indexed cost of acquisition thereof was Rs.77,31,397/- which resulted in net long term capital gains of Rs.77,68,603/-. We further note that the assessee thereafter purchased/re-invested the said capital gains on 05.02.2013 in purchasing 1120 sq. yrd. for Rs.1 ... learned CIT(A) has issued the following directions to the Assessing Officer: “4.5 As far as violation of section 54 is concerned, the long term capital gains has to be treated as income during the year in which the property was sold i.e. AY 2013-14 and taxed as long

Mirza Imran Baig, Hyderabad vs. ITO Ward 13(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1177/HYD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1177/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2012-13) Mirza Imran Baig Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Ward-13(1) [Pan : Apopb7772D] Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: None रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Ms.Reema Yadav, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 10/12/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 10/12/2024 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 13.07.2023 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Learned Cit(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Relating To A.Y.2012-13. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee, A Salaried Employee, Having Income Below The Taxable Limits, Sold A Property Along With His Mother & Sisters For A Consideration Of Rs.1,31,10,000/- & Invested The Resulting Capital Gains For Acquiring A Residential House At Hakimpet, Hyderabad For A 2 Consideration Of Rs.26,48,000/-. Notices U/S 142(1) & 148 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) Were Issued & Served On The Assessee, But The Assessee Neither Appeared Nor Filed Complete Details Before The Assessing Officer. Therefore, The Learned Assessing Officer Passed Best Judgement Assessment, Determining The Long Term Capital Gains At Rs.13,04,050/-.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: : Ms.Reema Yadav, DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144(1)Section 271(1)(c)

assessee neither appeared nor filed complete details before the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the learned Assessing Officer passed best judgement assessment, determining the long term capital gains at Rs.13,04,050/-. 3. Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before ... Assessing Officer is directed to reconsider the issue ‘denovo’ after providing another opportunity of hearing to the assessee and decide the issue of long term capital gains in accordance with law. The Assessing Officer is also directed to reconsider the issue of penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) and 271F