← 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

Krishan Kumar Tarachand, Pune vs. ITO (It) Ward -2, Pune

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

ITA 513/PUN/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 May 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.513/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Krishan Kumar Tarachand, Vs. Ito (It), Ward-2, Pune. Flat No.4, Anupam Apartments, Nda Pashan Road, Bavdhan Khurd, Pune- 411021 Pan : Abupd4503C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Manoj Tripathi Date Of Hearing : 29.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.05.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 09.07.2023 Passed By Ld Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. (A) The Ld. National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Erred In Law & In Facts In Dismissing The Appeal Filed Against Penalty Order U/S. 271(1)(C) Of Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 25.06.2018 Merely On The Premise That The Appeal Was Filed Belatedly & Without Providing Reasonable Opportunity Of Being Heard. (B) The Ld. Nfac Erred In Law In Dismissing The Appeal Filed Against Penalty Order U/S. 271(1)(C) Of Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 25.06.2018 Levying A Penalty Of Rs.6,09,760/- Without

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Tripathi
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 275

Assessing Officer u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the IT Act on 22.12.2017 determining total income of Rs.31,20,000/- under the head “Long Term Capital Gains”, on the 3 ground that the appellant assessee had sold an immovable property for a sale consideration of Rs.31,20,000/- which resulted ... taxable income under the head “Long Term Capital Gains”. The Assessing Officer also initiated penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income. Subsequently vide order dated 25-06-2018 penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act of Rs.6,09,760/- was imposed

Venkatesh Bomma, Hyderabad vs. ITO., (Int Taxn)-1, Hyderabad

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

ITA 62/HYD/2024[A Y 2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 May 2024

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.62/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15) Sri Venkatesh Bomma Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad (International Taxation)-1 Pan:Afhpb6561K Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P Rajeshwara Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Kumar Pranav, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 08/05/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 09/05/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri P Rajeshwara Rao, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Kumar Pranav, CIT(DR)
Section 144(1)Section 147Section 148Section 50C

Hyderabad relating to A.Y.2014-15. 2. The grounds raised by the assessee reads as under: “1. The Assessing Officer has erred in arriving long term capital gains by not considering the cost of construction as per work order to complete the Semi-Finished Residential Flat is erroneous as it is contrary ... r.w.s. 147 of the I.T. Act, dated 22.8.2022 and determined the total income at Rs.32,09,200 towards computation of Long-Term Capital Gain derived from transfer of property by taking into account full value of consideration as per provisions of section 50C of the Act without allowing deduction towards

Raghavan Srinivasan, Chennai vs. ITO, Corporate Ward-3(1), Chennai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 265/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. No.265/Chny/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2022-23 Mr.Raghavan Srinivasan Vs. Ito Door No.21, Block “T” Corporate Ward-3(1), Xi Street, Anna Nagar Chennai Chennai-600040. [Pan: Abips5129D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Kathir, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P.Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing 02.05.2024 : घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08.05.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Against The Order Dated 05.01.2024 Passed By The Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Assessee Raised Give Grounds Of Appeal, Amongst Which The Only Issue Emanates For Our Consideration As To Whether The Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi Is Justified In Confirming The Order Of Ao Ex-Parte Of Assessee.

For Appellant: Shri Kathir, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 263

passed by the AO u/s.143(3) read with 263 of the Act before CIT(A) challenging the action of AO in recomputing the long term capital gains and by disallowing indexed cost of construction in the computation of long term capital gains without assigning any proper reasons and justifications