← 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

Neelam Sanjay Mehta, Mumbai vs. NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 5859/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry (Jm) A N D Shri Prabhash Shankar (Am) Smt. Neelam Sanjay Mehta Ito, Ward 19(2)(4), 2/78-80, Gora Gandhi Building, C.P. Mumbai/ Nfac, Delhi Tank Road Vs. Mumbai-400 004. Pan : Ayzpm8574E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Vimal Punmiya, Ld. Ca Revenue By : Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 01/10/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 17/12/2025 O R D E R Per Narender Kumar Choudhry (Jm) :- This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 20.9.2024 Impugned Herein Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax/Nfac, Delhi (In Short Ld. Commissioner) Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘Act’) For A.Y. 2015-16. 2. In The Instant Case, The Assessee Being An Individual Deriving Income From Salary, House Property, Capital Gain & Other Sources Had Declared Her Total Income At Rs. 4,63,750/- By Filing Her Return Of Income On Dated 1.9.2015 For The Assessment Year Under Consideration. Subsequently, Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened Under Section 147 Of The Act, With The Reason That The Assessee Is One Of The Beneficiaries, Who Has Made Sale Of Shares, Wherein Trading Quantity Is Higher Than ‘Buy Trades Quantity’ Of The Scrip M/S. Toyam Industries Ltd. To The Tune Of Rs. 1,99,12,777/- & Accordingly, Statutory Notices Were Issued To The Assessee. In Response To Which, The Assessee Filed Relevant Details & The Documents, Such As Purchase Documents, Sale Contract Note, Bank Statement Etc. Qua Purchase & Sale Of Shares Of Scrip Namely M/S. Toyam Industries Ltd. .

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya, Ld. CAFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Ld. Sr
Section 10(38)Section 147Section 155BSection 250Section 68

payment of Rs. 1,99,12,777/- has been received on such sale of shares through banking channel and consequently assessee claimed long term capital gains of Rs. 1,94,31,627/- arose from the sale of shares of Toyam Industries Ltd., on which STT was also paid and such ... allegations have ever been levelled or proved against the assessee, qua rigging of shares and/or manipulating the transaction for earning such long term capital gains and therefore on this count itself, the addition is unsustainable. 11. We further observe that identical addition qua same scrip as involved in this case

Radhika Bahadur, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle Int. Taxation 1(1)(2), Delhi

ITA 995/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhआअसं.995/धिल्ली/2025(नि.व. 2016-17) Radhika Bahadur, C/O. R. Khare & Associates, 7/6, Sarvapriya Vihar, New Delhi 110016 ...... अपीलार्थी/Appellant Pan: Avapb-3016-C बिाम Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax, International Taxation 1(1)(2), Civic Centre, .....प्रनिवादी/Respondent Minto Road, New Delhi 110002 अपीलार्थी द्वारा/ Appellant By: S/Shri Rohan Khare & Priyam Bhatnagar, Advocates प्रधििािीद्वारा/Respondent By: Shri M.S Nethrapal, Cit-Dr सुिवाई की निथर्थ/ Date Of Hearing : 11/12/2025 घोषणा की निथर्थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 11/12/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm:

For Appellant: S/Shri Rohan Khare & Priyam BhatnagarFor Respondent: Shri M.S Nethrapal, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69A

following grounds:- “1. That Learned ACIT, inspite of direction of DRP had not given benefit of cost of purchase of property while computing long term capital gains hence resulting into an addition of Rs 49,95,000 as long term capital gains which is not only ... proceeds amounting to Rs 22,60,500( Goa property) and Rs 33,90,000 Gurugram property) as income from other sources instead of long term capital gains as declared which is not only bad in law but also against the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. The learned ACIT

Gurminder Singh, Ambala City vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-2, Ambala, Ambala Cantt

The appeal stand allowed

ITA 887/CHANDI/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh10 Dec 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.887/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2024-25) Sh. Gurminder Singh Ito Ward-2 बनाम/ Vs. H.No.1998, Sec.9, Urban Estate Ambala 133001 Ambala City – 134003 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Cidps-7267-J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Gurminder Singh (Assessee-In-Person) ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. Moatenla (Jcit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17-11-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10-12-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. The Sole Grievance Of The Assessee In Captioned Appeal For Assessment Year (Ay) 2024-25 Is Quantum Of Rebate U/S 87A. The Impugned Order Has Been Passed By Learned Addl. / Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Nagpur [Cit(A)] On 27-05- 2025 In The Matter Of An Intimation Issued By Cpc U/S 143(1) On 23-03- 2025. Having Heard Rival Submissions, The Appeal Is Disposed-Off As Under.

For Appellant: Shri Gurminder Singh (Assessee-in-person)For Respondent: Smt. Moatenla (JCIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 112A(6)Section 143(1)Section 87ASection 9

under. 2. From case records, it emerges that the assessee has earned following income during this year: - No. Particulars Amount (Rs.) 1. Equity Long Term Capital Gains 1,03,264/- 2. Debt Long Term Capital Gains with indexation 1,19,020/- 3. Equity Short Term Capital Gains ... capital gains as referred to in sub-section (1) of s.112A. Thus, this rebate would not be allowed on tax computed on Long-Term Capital Gains. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us. 4. We find that sub-section (6) of s.112A prohibit rebate u/s 87A on capital