← 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

Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(1), Hyderabad vs. Indira Vengala, Hyderabad

ITA 587/HYD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri Manjunatha G.Assessment Year – 2018-19 Income Tax Officer, Late Indira Vengala, Hyderabad. Ward 6(1), Hyderabad. Represented By Legal Heir Vengala Sanjeev Kumar, Hyderabad. Pan : Bbopv2537D (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O.No.10/Hyd/2024 Arising Out Of Ita No.587/Hyd/2024 Assessment Year – 2018-19 Late Indira Vengala, Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward6(1), Hyderabad. Represented By Legal Heir Vengala Sanjeev Kumar, Hyderabad. Pan : Bbopv2537D (Cross Objector) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Pavan Kumar Gorti, Ca. Revenue By: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Sr.A.R. Date Of Hearing: 23.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.09.2024

For Appellant: Shri Pavan Kumar Gorti, CAFor Respondent: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Sr.A.R
Section 147Section 54(1)

wrongfully treated both the sales and purchase transactions separately and taxed both the transactions as addition in respect of immovable property transaction being long term capital gain and similarly made addition on account of unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act. The CIT(A)-NFAC after considering the facts ... documents, noted that the assessee has earned long term capital gains on transfer of residential house at Rs.42,10,368/- as against the sale consideration received at Rs.70,00,000/-. The CIT(A)-NFAC noted that the cost of acquisition of new residential house property is at Rs.69

Ishoo Narang, Hyderabad vs. DCIT Circle -2(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 450/HYD/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.450/Hyd/2022 & S.A. No.1/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15) Ishoo Narang Vs. Dy. Cit Hyderabad Circle 2(1) Pan:Aaupn9082B Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. Th Vijaya Lakshmi, Cit (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 19/08/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 25/09/2024 आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha, G. A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 15/07/2022 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac Delhi, Relating To A.Y.2014-15. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: “1. The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Dismissing The Appeal. 2. The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Holding That Al The Mandatory Preconditions Before Reopening Of Assessment U/S 147 Of The Act Were Duly Complied & Met With By The A.O.

For Appellant: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: : Smt. TH Vijaya Lakshmi, CIT (DR)
Section 10(38)Section 133ASection 147Section 68

manipulated the sale of shares within a short span of time in collusion with the brokers in order to earn tax free exempt long term Capital Gains. 9. The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in holding that the motive of the appellant is not to derive income but to earn ... Sharp Trading Company for Rs.4,14,90,843/- respectively. Thus, during the financial year relevant to A.Y 2014-15 the assessee has earned Long-Term Capital Gain of Rs.6,40,51,466/-on sale of equity shares of 2 companies and claimed exempt

Purushotham Mundada, Warangal vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2243/HYD/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं / Ita No.631/Hyd/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Shri Aditya Mundada, The Income Tax Officer, Warangal. Vs. Ward – 5, Pan : Bdspm1712R. Warangal. अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent आ.अपी.सं / Ita No.2243/Hyd/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Purushotham Mundada The Assistant Commissioner (Huf), Vs. Of Income Tax, Warangal. Circle – 1, Pan : Aahhpoo47D. Hyderabad. अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Sr. AR
Section 10(38)Section 68

upholding the action of the Assessing Officer in taxing the entire sale consideration of Rs.1,52,21,982/-, claimed by assessee as long term capital gain and claimed the same as exempt u/s 10(38) of the Act, assessed as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. For this ... Finance Limited for a sale consideration of Rs.1,52,21,982/- and after adjusting the purchase cost of Rs.4,00,000/-, worked out long term capital gains at Rs.1,48,21,982/- and claimed the entire long term capital gain as exempt

Shri Kirankumar Rasiklal Sanghvi, Deesa vs. The Pr.CIT-4, Ahmedabad

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 179/AHD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarिनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 Shri Kirankumar Rasiklal Sanghvi, The Principal Commissioner Of 1, Paras Society, Neminathnagar Income-Tax-4, Vs. Road, Deesa, Gujarat-385535 Ahmedabad Pan : Afops 0131 D अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" "" "" यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" Assessee By : Shri Manish J. Shah & Shri Rushin Patel, Ars Revenue By : Shri Durga Dutt, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12.09.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 24.09.2024 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Annapurna Gupta: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax-4, Ahmedabad [Herein- After Referred To As “Pcit”] Dated 03.03.2020, In Exercise Of His Revisionary Powers Under Section 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”], For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16. 2. The Registry Has Noted The Present Appeal To Be Barred By Limitation By 1355 Days. The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Explained That There Was, In Fact, No Delay In Filing The Appeal Before The Tribunal For The Reason That The Assessee Had Inadvertently Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Ld. Pcit Before The Surat Bench Of The Itat Which, When The Appeal Came Up For Hearing Before It, Passed A Judicial Order Dated 21.11.2023 Dismissing The Appeal As Withdrawn, Noting The Fact That The Correct Jurisdiction Lay With The 2 Shri Kirankumar Rasiklal Sanghvi Vs. Pcit Ay : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Manish J. Shah &For Respondent: Shri Durga Dutt, CIT-DR
Section 14Section 143(3)Section 23Section 263Section 54F

under:- “(1) The Principal CIT has erred in law and on fact of the case in directing the Assessing Officer to substitute the long term capital gain at Rs.5,74,66,137/- in place of long term capital gain adopted at Rs.1,79,41,770/- in the assessment order passed ... allowance of claim of exemption/ deduction u/s 54F of the Act , which was claimed by the assessee on account of having invested long term capital gains earned in a new residential house. The Ld.PCIT found the claim to be not allowable since he found the assessee to have contravened

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Ncc3(1) Chennai, Nungambakkam vs. Shri Venkatesh Meghraj Kathare, Alwarpet

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

ITA 974/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:974/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2014-15 The Assistant Commissioner Shri Venkatesh Meghraj Kathare, Of Income Tax, Vs. New No.205, Old No.128, Non-Corporate Circle 3(1), St. Mary Road, Chennai. Chennai – 600 018. Pan: Aadpk 5251E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Ms. R. Anita, Addl.Cit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri G. Seetharaman, C.A. सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18.09.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20.09.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Arising Out Of The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre In Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1061041943(1) Dated 16.02.2024. The Assessment Was Framed By The Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Non-Corporate Circle 3, Chennai For The Assessment Year 2014-15 U/S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’) Vide Order Dated 30.12.2016. 2. The First Issue In This Appeal Of Revenue Is Against The Order Of Cit(A) Treating The Sale Of Land At Tiruvottiyur High Road As Long Term Capital Gain As Against Assessed By Ao As Short Term Capital Gain. For This, Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds:- 1) The Cit(A) Has Erred On The Facts Of The Case In Treating The Capital Gains On Sale Of Land At Tiruvottiyur High Road As Long Term Capital Gain Instead Of Short Term Capital Gain Without Appreciating That :

For Appellant: Ms. R. Anita, Addl.CITFor Respondent: Shri G. Seetharaman, C.A
Section 143(3)Section 2Section 2(47)Section 46(2)

issue in this appeal of Revenue is against the order of CIT(A) treating the sale of land at Tiruvottiyur High Road as Long Term Capital Gain as against assessed by AO as Short Term Capital Gain. For this, Revenue has raised the following grounds ... erred on the facts of the case in treating the capital gains on sale of land at Tiruvottiyur High Road as Long term Capital gain instead of Short Term Capital Gain without appreciating that : a) There are effectively two transactions involved. The first transaction relates to the assessee