← 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

Manjula H. Vira, Mumbai vs. ACIT 27(2), Mumbai, Navi Mumbai

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

ITA 2923/MUM/2023[2015-2016]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai09 Dec 2024AY 2015-2016

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2015-16 Manjula H. Vira, Acit-27(2), 1201, Kailash Palace, Tower No. 6, 4Th Floor, Upashray Lane, Vs. Vashi Railway Station Complex, Ghatkopar (East), Vashi, Mumbai. Navi Mumbai. Pan : Anips5867Q (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal, For Revenue : Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 04-12-2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 09-12-2024 O R D E R Per B.R. Baskaran, A.M : The Assesseee Has Filed This Appeal Challenging The Order Dated 04-08-2023 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A)-Nfac, Delhi & It Relates To The Assessment Year (Ay.) 2015-16. The Assessee Is Aggrieved By The Decision Of The Ld.Cit(A) In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.3.28 Crores Relating To Sale Prices Of Shares Added By The Ao U/S 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 („The Act‟) & Also The Addition Of Rs.9,83,123/- Relating To Estimated Commission Expenses Made U/S 69C Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr.DR
Section 10(38)Section 131Section 68Section 69C

facts relating to the above said issue are discussed in brief. During the year under consideration, the assessee had declared long term capital gains of Rs.3.21 crores on sale of shares of M/s. Greencrest Financial Services Limited (earlier known as Marigold Glass Industries Ltd.) and claimed the same as exempt ... shares of Rs.10/- each. The Investigation Wing had carried out investigation with regard to the price manipulations and generation of bogus long term capital gains in number of stocks, classified as penny stocks. The AO noticed that the shares of the above said company was also identified

Ramanathan Adaikalavan, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu vs. The Income Tax Officer, National Faceless Assessment Centre, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 557/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.557/Chny/2024 निर्ाारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2014-15 Ramanathan Adaikalavan, Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, No.80, Ansari Street, Ram Nagar, Non-Corporate Circle-2, Coimbatore-641009. Coimbatore [Pan: Aanpa6846P] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri P.M.Kathir, Advocate. प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुिवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05.11.2024 घोर्णा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 06.12.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

For Appellant: Shri P.M.Kathir, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 55A

assessee informed that original return of income was filed by the assessee declaring income of Rs. 22,70,250/- which included long term capital gains of Rs.19,48,600/-. The original order u/s 143(3) was passed on 29.12.2016. The Ld. AO had made an addition of Rs.13 ... account of additional long term capital gains. The impugned additions have been discussed in para 2 to 7 of AO’s order dated 29.12.2016 on page 2 to 4. The addition was in respect of a property being Hotel Meena at Rs.109, Kalinga Rayar Street, Ram Nagar, Coimbatore

Adala Bhanu Rekha, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-6(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 583/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.583/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Adala Bhanu Rekha Vs. Dcit Hyderabad Circle-6(1) [Pan : Accpa8679F] Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri Bg Reddy, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 25/11/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 05/12/2024 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 31/03/2024 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Learned Cit(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Relating To A.Y.2017-18 On The Following Grounds :

For Appellant: Shri BG Reddy, ARFor Respondent: : Shri Srinath Sadanala, DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 54F

bank statements both before the Assessing Officer and the CIT (Appeals). c) The learned CIT(Appeals) failed to note that the amount of long-term capital gains in respect of which the appellant claimed the said deduction was in respect of the transfer of land pertaining to seven villas sold ... which, the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment on account of excess deduction allowed u/s 54F of the Act against long term capital gains derived from transfer of property. Therefore, notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 27.03.2021 was issued. In response to the notice

Sher Singh, Yamuna Nagar vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 4, Yamuna Nagar

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 647/CHANDI/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Dec 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sanjay Gargआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 647/Chd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09 बनाम Sher Singh, The Ito, Jaroda Jagadhri, Ward-4, Yamunanagar 135001 Yamunanagar "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Ajhps05405C अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent ( Physical Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Ms. Kamakshi Mahajan, Ca राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Dr. Ranjeet Kaur, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 07.11.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 03.12.2024 आदेश/Order The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 29.08.2023 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax, National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’], For The Assessment Year 2008- 09. 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Is Aggrieved By The Action Of The Cit(A) In Confirming The Additon Made By The Assessing Officer

For Appellant: Ms. Kamakshi Mahajan, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjeet Kaur, Sr. DR
Section 54F

lacs. The A.O., therefore, allowed deduction u/s 54F of the Act to the extent of Rs. 25 lacs and computed the Long Term Capital Gains at Rs. 21,08,371/-. 4. In appeal, the ld. CIT(A) rejected the claim of the Assessee u/s 54F of the Act, observing that

Lakhmi Chand Yadav, Faridabad vs. ITO, Ward-1(4), Faridabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the substantial questions of law are answered against the revenue

ITA 516/DEL/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Dec 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. M. Balaganeshita No. 516/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Lakhmi Chand Yadav, Vs Income Tax Officer, Village Mirzapur Hardet Haveli Ward-1(4), Mujehri, Faridabad, Haryana-121004 Faridabad-121001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaepy4744P Assessee By : Sh. M. K. Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Sh. B. S. Anand, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 25.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 03.12.2024 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2011-12, Arises Against The Order Of Cit(A), Faridabad Dated 28.11.2019 In Case No. 10339/2018-19 In Proceedings U/S 143(3)/147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: Sh. M. K. Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Sh. B. S. Anand, Sr. Dr
Section 133ASection 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 260A

section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 assessment dated 15.02.2018 had inter alia made undisclosed source of income addition of Rs.6,00,000/- followed by long term capital gains arising from sale/transfer of the land falling within Municipal limit of Faridabad amounting to Rs.31,68,900; respectively ... said former amount of Rs.6,00,000/- to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/- only and affirmed 2 Lakhmi Chand Yadav the long term capital gains addition in toto. We are further informed that there is third issue of long term capital gains amounting to Rs.39,77,300/- made