← 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

Maga Sai Ramalingavara Prasad Govada, Visakhapatnam vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-(1), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 210/VIZ/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam31 Oct 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.209/Viz/2023 & 210/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2010-11) Maga Sai Ramalingavara Prasad Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of Govada Income Tax [Rep.By Legal Heir Son Circle-1(1) Mr.G.Balakrishna] Visakhapatnam D.No.31-35-41, Vivekananda Colony Assam Gardens Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aappg5719B] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri G.Bala Krishna, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri Madhukar Aves, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing 11.10.2023 : घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31.10.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy: These Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee’S Legal Heir, His Son, Shri G.Balakrishna Against The Orders Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Cit(A)], Delhi Dated 31.05.2023. Since, The Grounds Raised In The Appeals Are Identical In Nature, These Appeals Are Clubbed, Heard Together & A Common Order Is Being Passed For The Sake Of Convenience As Under. Facts Are Extracted From I.T.A.No.209/Viz/2023. 2

For Appellant: Shri G.Bala Krishna, ARFor Respondent: Shri Madhukar Aves, DR
Section 133(6)Section 144Section 148Section 250

assessment ex- parte as per provisions of section 144 of the Act as the assessee is liable to pay tax on his long term capital gains. 3. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) and the Ld.CIT(A) upheld the assessment

Maga Sai Ramalingavara Prasad Govada, Visakhapatnam vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 209/VIZ/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam31 Oct 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.209/Viz/2023 & 210/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2010-11) Maga Sai Ramalingavara Prasad Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of Govada Income Tax [Rep.By Legal Heir Son Circle-1(1) Mr.G.Balakrishna] Visakhapatnam D.No.31-35-41, Vivekananda Colony Assam Gardens Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aappg5719B] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri G.Bala Krishna, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri Madhukar Aves, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing 11.10.2023 : घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31.10.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy: These Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee’S Legal Heir, His Son, Shri G.Balakrishna Against The Orders Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Cit(A)], Delhi Dated 31.05.2023. Since, The Grounds Raised In The Appeals Are Identical In Nature, These Appeals Are Clubbed, Heard Together & A Common Order Is Being Passed For The Sake Of Convenience As Under. Facts Are Extracted From I.T.A.No.209/Viz/2023. 2

For Appellant: Shri G.Bala Krishna, ARFor Respondent: Shri Madhukar Aves, DR
Section 133(6)Section 144Section 148Section 250

assessment ex- parte as per provisions of section 144 of the Act as the assessee is liable to pay tax on his long term capital gains. 3. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) and the Ld.CIT(A) upheld the assessment

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Guntur vs. Polisetty Somasundaram Pvt Ltd, Guntur

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the Cross Objection raised by the assessee is disposed off as mentioned herein above

ITA 248/VIZ/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam31 Oct 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.248/Viz/2022 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2015-16) The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Polisetty Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Somasundaram Pvt Ltd., 3Rd Floor, Rajkamal Complex, D.No. 3-30-17, Sundaram Lakshmipuram Main Road, Colony, Ring Road, Guntur-522 007, Gujjanagundla, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh. Andhra Pradesh-522006. Pan: Aabcp 3168 Q (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) C.O. No. 03/Viz/2023 (In आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.248/Viz/2022) ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2015-16) M/S. Polisetty Somasundaram Pvt Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Ltd., Income Tax, Central Circle-1, D.No. 3-30-17, Sundaram Colony, 3Rd Floor, Rajkamal Complex, Ring Road, Gujjanagundla, Lakshmipuram Main Road, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh-522006. Guntur-522 007, Pan: Aabcp 3168 Q Andhra Pradesh. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Assessee By : Sri Gvn Hari, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Revenue By : Dr Satya Sai Rath, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr Satya Sai Rath, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

28/12/2015 admitting a total income of Rs. 24,01,89,770/- comprising of ‘income from other sources’ of Rs. 13,91,496/- and ‘Long Term Capital Gains’ of Rs. 23,87,98,274/-. Subsequently, the assessment was completed U/s. 143(3) wherein the Ld. AO made an addition ... bogus purchases. 3. The Ld. CIT (A) is justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 5,86,00,000/- made under the head ‘long term capital gains’. 4. Any other ground of cross objection that may be raised at the time of hearing.” 5. At the outset, the Ld. Departmental

Income Tax Officer-1(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Sohni Depak Tanna, Mumbai

In the result appeal of the learned assessing officer and cross objections of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2245/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm C.O.No. 135/Mum/2022 (Assessment Year 2014-15) Sohni Dipak Tanna Ito 1(1)(1), Mumbai 2Nd Floor, Tanna House, 11A, 534, 5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Nathlal Parekh Marg, M. K. Road, Vs. Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Acept3611J Sohni Dipak Tanna Ito 1(1)(1), Mumbai 2Nd Floor, Tanna House, 11A, 534, 5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Nathlal Parekh Marg, M. K. Road, Vs. Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Acept3611J Assessee By : Shri. Madhur Agrawal & Pankaj Jain Revenue By : Shri. Kishor Dhule Date Of Hearing: 03.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.10.2023

For Appellant: Shri. Madhur Agrawal & PankajFor Respondent: Shri. Kishor Dhule
Section 10Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 68

case and in law, the learned CIT (appeals) erred in deleting the disallowance made by the AO of the assessee’s claim of long-term capital gain of ₹ 124,648,690/– overlooking the fact that the entire transactions were stage managed with the object to facilitate the assessee to plough ... back are unaccounted income in the form of fictitious long-term capital gain claimed as exempt under section 10 (38) of the income tax act 3. on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT (appeals) A.Y. 2014-15 Sohni Dipak Tanna erred