← 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

Ketan Harilal Mehta HUF by Its Karta Ketan H Mehta, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward-33(2)(2) Mumbai Presently Juridiction With ITO 42(1)(1) Mumbai, Mumbai

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

ITA 770/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleketan Harilal Mehta Huf Vs. Ito-42(1)(1), (By Its Karta Kautilya Bhavan, Ketanmehta)No.B/1101, Bkc,Bandra(E), Siddhi Vinayak Tower, Mumbai-400051. Opp Phoenix Hospital, Chikuwadi, Mumbai-400092. Pan/Gir No. : Aaehk3266N Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Nishit Gandhi.Ar Respondent By : Shri. P.D. Chougule.Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 02.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 03.06.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac)(Cit(A)) Delhi Passed U/Sec 143(3) & U/Sec250 Of The Income Tax Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri. Nishit Gandhi.ARFor Respondent: Shri. P.D. Chougule.Sr.DR
Section 10(38)Section 68Section 69C

Harilal Mehta, HUF,Mumbai. 3.2. While doing so the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that: i. The Appellant had correctly claimed the long term Capital gains on sale of equity shares through recognized stock exchange after paying the due Securities Transactions Tax (STT) thereon; ii. The addition made ... gains and income from other sources. Further the assessee Ketan Harilal Mehta, HUF,Mumbai. has claimed exemption U/sec10(38) of the Act being long term capital gains on sale of shares of Rs. 74,20,500/- and the A.O. has called for the details and information. The AO found that

Sudhakar Reddy Mettu, Usa vs. ACIT., International Taxation-1, Hyderabad

In the result, appeals filed by both the assessees are dismissed

ITA 232/HYD/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 May 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.231/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Smt. Lekha Reddy Mettu Vs. Acit (International Usa/Hyderabad Taxation-1) Pan:Bnhpm0166N Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.232/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Sudhakar Reddy Vs. Acit (International Mettu, Usa/ Hyderabad Taxation-1) Pan:Bnhpm0447G Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Ca Akshay Surana राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Jeeval Lal Lavidiya, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 27/05/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 29/05/2024

For Appellant: CA Akshay SuranaFor Respondent: : Shri Jeeval Lal Lavidiya, CIT(DR)
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 270ASection 50CSection 54F

owners. The assessee’s share in chargeable sale consideration as per section 50C of the IT Act, 1961 for computation of Long Term Capital Gain is Rs.64,57,000/- and the assessee will get the benefit of deduction of indexed cost of acquisition and construction/improvement when the details become available ... relevant to AY 2017-18, income chargeable to tax in the hands of assessee accrued in the form of Long Term Capital Gains to the extent of Rs.64,57,000/- but the assessee did not file return of income and he did not offer this income to tax. Therefore, income

Lekha Reddy Mettu, Usa vs. ACIT., International Taxation-1, Hyderabad

In the result, appeals filed by both the assessees are dismissed

ITA 231/HYD/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 May 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.231/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Smt. Lekha Reddy Mettu Vs. Acit (International Usa/Hyderabad Taxation-1) Pan:Bnhpm0166N Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.232/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Sudhakar Reddy Vs. Acit (International Mettu, Usa/ Hyderabad Taxation-1) Pan:Bnhpm0447G Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Ca Akshay Surana राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Jeeval Lal Lavidiya, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 27/05/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 29/05/2024

For Appellant: CA Akshay SuranaFor Respondent: : Shri Jeeval Lal Lavidiya, CIT(DR)
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 270ASection 50CSection 54F

owners. The assessee’s share in chargeable sale consideration as per section 50C of the IT Act, 1961 for computation of Long Term Capital Gain is Rs.64,57,000/- and the assessee will get the benefit of deduction of indexed cost of acquisition and construction/improvement when the details become available ... relevant to AY 2017-18, income chargeable to tax in the hands of assessee accrued in the form of Long Term Capital Gains to the extent of Rs.64,57,000/- but the assessee did not file return of income and he did not offer this income to tax. Therefore, income

Suresh Maheshwari HUF, Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner on Income-Tax-25(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 3904/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayassessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Suresh Maheshwari Huf Dy. Commissioner Of 431, Akshay Girikunj, Income –Tax-25(1), Bldg.- 3, Parliament Road, Vs. Room No. 206, 2Nd Floor, Matru Mandir, Andheri (West) – 400058. Andheri Railway Station S.O. Tardeo Road, Pan: Aabhs3934A Mumbai- 400007. (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Rajesh Shah, C.A. Revenue By : Shri Prashant Mahajan, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 07 . 05 . 2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 29 . 05 . 2024 O R D E R Per : Ratnesh Nandan Sahay: 1. These Appeals Have Been Filed By The Appellant Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit (Appeals) Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income Tax Act [The „Act‟ In Short] Dated 21/09/2023 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Following Grounds Have Been Raised In Ita No. 3904/M/ 2023:-

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Shah, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Prashant Mahajan, Sr. D.R
Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 148Section 250Section 68Section 69

erred in confirming the addition of ₹ 73,94,850/- u/s 68 of the Act by treating long term capital gains as bogus. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in natural justice for confirming the addition as the Ld. AO has not provided any cogent materials or cross examination ... addition of Rs.73,94,850/- u/s. 68 of the Act on the ground that the claim of the assessee that it has earned Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) on account of sale of shares of Rander Corporation and Radford Global and exempted

Suresh Maheshwari HUF, Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner on Income-Tax-25(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 3903/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 May 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayassessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Suresh Maheshwari Huf Dy. Commissioner Of 431, Akshay Girikunj, Income –Tax-25(1), Bldg.- 3, Parliament Road, Vs. Room No. 206, 2Nd Floor, Matru Mandir, Andheri (West) – 400058. Andheri Railway Station S.O. Tardeo Road, Pan: Aabhs3934A Mumbai- 400007. (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Rajesh Shah, C.A. Revenue By : Shri Prashant Mahajan, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 07 . 05 . 2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 29 . 05 . 2024 O R D E R Per : Ratnesh Nandan Sahay: 1. These Appeals Have Been Filed By The Appellant Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit (Appeals) Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income Tax Act [The „Act‟ In Short] Dated 21/09/2023 For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Following Grounds Have Been Raised In Ita No. 3903 Of 2023 Are As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Shah, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Prashant Mahajan, Sr. D.R
Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 68Section 69Section 69C

erred in confirming the addition of ₹ 66,10,708/- u/s 68 of the Act by treating long term capital gains as bogus. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in natural justice for confirming the addition as the Ld. AO has not provided any cogent materials or cross examination ... Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny under CASS. It was noticed by the AO that as per working of long term capital gain attached with return of income, the assessee has earned Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) of Rs. 52,83,805/- on account of sale of the scrip