← 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

Suresh M. Bhathija (HUF), Mumbai vs. ITO WD 23(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2561/MUM/2022[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhbhathija Suresh M (Huf) Vs. Income Tax Officer 120 Dakshinpali, D Monte 23(3)(1), Mumbai Park Road Pali Hill Mumbai 400050 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaahs 8289 M Appellant .. Respondent [ Appellant By : Ms. Rutuja N Pawar& Ms. Sneha More Respondent By : Shri Yogendra T Wakare Date Of Hearing 31.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 27.09.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Nfac (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 15.09.2022 For A.Y. 2006-07. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “1. The Learned Cit(Appeals) Was Not Justified In Confirming The Action Of The Learned Assessing Officer In Bringing To Tax An Amount Of Rs. 90,92,165/- As Long Term Capital Gains On Sale Of Land. 2. The Learned Cit(Appeals) & The Learned Assessing Officer Failed To Appreciate That The Said Land Was An Agricultural Land & Was Not A Capital Asset. 3. Without Prejudice To The Above Grounds Of Appeal, The Learned Cit(Appeals) & The Learned Assessing Officer Were Not Justified In Disallowing The Claim For Expenses Of Rs. 69,00,000/- While Computing The Long Term Capital Gains.

For Appellant: Ms. Rutuja N Pawar&For Respondent: Shri Yogendra T Wakare
Section 143(2)Section 50C

justified in confirming the action of the learned Assessing Officer in bringing to tax an amount of Rs. 90,92,165/- as long term capital gains on sale of land. 2. The learned CIT(Appeals) and the learned Assessing Officer failed to appreciate that the said land was an agricultural ... Appeals) and the learned Assessing Officer were not justified in disallowing the claim for expenses of Rs. 69,00,000/- while computing the long term capital gains. P a g e | 2 Suresh M. Bhathija (HUF) vs. ITO 4. The reasons given by the learned CIT(Appeals) and the learned