← 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

Bikash Kumar Kedia, Hyderabad vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 405/HYD/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.707/Hyd/2020 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16) Shri Subhash Kumar Kedia Vs. Asstt. C. I. T. Hyderabad Central Circle 3(1) Pan:Afvpk8915Q Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No. 405/Hyd/2020 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16) Vs. Shri Bikash Kumar Asstt. C. I. T. Kedia Hyderabad Central Circle 3(1) Pan:Afapk8794E Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Vamshi Krishna, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 09/10/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 29/10/2024 आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha, G. A.M These Two Appeals Filed By Different Assessees Are Directed Against The Separate, But Identical Orders Dated 31/01/2020 Of The Learned Cit (A)-11, Hyderabad Relating To Page 1 Of 33

For Appellant: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Vamshi Krishna, DR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

clearly proved that the assessee has indulged in a dubious share transaction meant to account for the undisclosed income in the garb of Long Term Capital Gains. (h) The Ld. AO ought to have accepted the admission of long term capital gains on the sale of shares of M/s Surabhi ... return of income under the Page 4 of 33 ITA 707 & 405 of 2020 Subhash Kumar Kedia & Other head "Income from Long Term Capital Gains" as per the provisions of section 45 of the Act and E that the addition of the same u/s 68 of the Act towards "unexplained

Ayyappankavu Chandrasekharan Vijayalakshmi, Chennai vs. ACIT, Corporate Circle-14(1), Chennai

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

ITA 2136/CHNY/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Oct 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2136/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Ayyappankavu Chandrasekharan Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Vijayalakshmi, 4, Thiruvengadam Income Tax, Street, West Mambalam, Corporate Circle 14(1), Chennai 600 033. Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Aadpv3516D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri R. Kumar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 21.10.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29.10.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 22.05.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. We Find That This Appeal Was Filed With A Delay Of 22 Days. On Perusal Of The Petition Filed In Support Of Notarized Affidavit, Submissions Of The Ld. Ar & Ld. Dr, We Find The Reasons Explained By The Assessee

For Appellant: Shri R. Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 271(1)(c)

that no penalty is maintainable for non- furnishing the details as the assessee truly disclosed the transaction of the sale consideration and disclosed long term capital gains. The ld. AR argued that the Hon’ble High Court of Madras, in the case of CIT v. Cafco Syndicate Shipping

DCIT, Ghaziabad vs. Sh. Jagesh Khaitan, Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 667/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Oct 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar Usa.Yr. : 2011-12 Deputy Commissioner Of Sh. Jagesh Khaitan, Income Tax, Vs. Kothi No. 47, Sector-4A, Central Circle, Chandigarh Room No. 229, 2Nd Floor, Cgo Complex-I, Hapur Chungi, Ghaziabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sh. Ayush Garg, Ca Respondent By : Sh. Dayainder Singh Sidhu, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 28.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.10.2024 Order Per Shamim Yahya, Am : The Revenue Has Filed The Instant Appeal Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(Appeal-Iv), New Delhi Dated 30.11.2016, Relating To Assessment Year 2011- 12 On The Following Grounds:- 1. That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Deleting The Addition Made By The Ao On Account Of Long Term Capital Gains & Ignored The Finding Of The Ao That No Exemption Is Allowable On Swapping / Transfer Of Shares Of Companies Without Any Consideration. 2. That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Creating The Transfer Of Shares Of Companies Between Two Different Families As ‘Family Settlement’ Which Is Actually ‘Business Transactions’ Between Two Separate Families & Declaring It As Family Settlement Through An ‘Unregistered Document’ Is Nothing But A ‘Colorable Device’ To Avoid Payment Of Capital Gains Tax.

For Appellant: Sh. Ayush Garg, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT(DR)

That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition made by the AO on account of long term capital gains and ignored the finding of the AO that no exemption is allowable on swapping / transfer of shares of companies without any consideration

Ramachandran, Chennai vs. ACIT, Non Coporate Circle-2, Chennai

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

ITA 775/CHNY/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.775 /Chny/2023 निर्ाारण वर्ा /Assessment Year: 2015-16 Ramachandran The Asst. Commissioner Of Old No.9, New No.19, Vs. Income Tax, Jumaulingam Street, Non-Corporate Circle-2 Mylapore, Chennai Chennai-600004 [Pan: Aaqhr6150N] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Y.Sridhar, F.C.A. प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुिवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 31.07.2024 घोर्णा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23.10.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M : This Appeal Is Filed Against The Order Bearing Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1053343791(1) Dated 31.05.2023 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax [Herein After “Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Center[Nfac], Delhi, For The Assessment Years 2015- 16. Through The Aforesaid Appeal The Assesse Has Challenged Order U/S 250 Dated 31.05.2023 Passed By Nfac, Delhi. :- 2 -:

For Appellant: Shri Y.Sridhar, F.C.AFor Respondent: Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 10(38)Section 250Section 263Section 68

addition by relying upon observations of the Special Investigating Team(SIT) on black money which was formed to examine misuse of exemption on long term capital gains for money laundering. The Ld. AO had issued summons and recorded sworn statement of the assesse on 28.12.2017. As per para ... action of the assessing officer. While doing so, the recorded in para-6.2 of his order that the assesse had :- 4 -: declared long term capital gains u/s 10(38) of Rs.4,02,07,850/- in respect of 125000 shares of KAPPAC pharma limited. The Ld. First Appellate Authority placed reliance