← 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

Shri Jagdish Subharam Chitade vs. A.C.I.T Cir.-3, Nagpur

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 483/NAG/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur10 Jan 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.483/Nag/2016 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Jagdish Subharam Chitade, The Assistant H.No.36, Godhani Bokhara, Dist. Vs. Commissioner Of Income Nagpur. Tax, Circle-3, Nagpur. Pan: Asppc 6752 Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By None. Revenue By Shri G.J.Ninawe – Dr Date Of Hearing 15/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 10/01/2023 आदेश/ Order Per S.S.Godara, Jm: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2012-13 Is Directed Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)-2, Nagpur’S Dated 09.05.2016 In Case No.Cit(A)-2/111/2015-16, In Proceedings U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short “The Act”].

Section 143(3)Section 2(14)Section 54BSection 54F

capital asset, we find from a perusal of the assessment discussion dated 25.03.2015 in para 3 page 2 he had himself declared long term capital gains of Rs.16,27,806/- followed by section 54B and section 54F deductions; as the case may be. There is also no material filed before ... Shri Jagdish Subharam Chitade [A] determined the value in issue as Rs.12,649/- only which resulted in re-computation of the assessee’s long term capital gains so far as the cost of acquisition of the asset in issue is concerned. We deem it appropriate to observe that the Assessing

Mehul Krishnkant Mehta, Mumbai vs. ACIT 29(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1654/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalemehul Krishnakant Vs. Acit, Circle – 29(2) Mehta Room No. 202, C-10, Shop No. 24, Sharmila 2Nd Floor Bkc, Apartments, Model Bandra (E), Town, Mulund (W), Mumbai – 400051. Mumbai – 400080. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacpm6130D Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Ravi Swarna.Ar Respondent By : Shri. Suresh Periasamy.Dr Date Of Hearing 13.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 30.12.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi / Cit(A) Passed U/S 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Fallowing Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri. Ravi Swarna.ARFor Respondent: Shri. Suresh Periasamy.DR
Section 10(38)Section 250Section 68

Parag Shilpa Investment Ltd. as Mehul Krishnkant Mehta, Mumbai. unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the Act and consequently denying exemption of long-term capital gain of Rs. 97,38,148/- u/s. 10(38) of the Act on the alleged ground that transaction entered into by the Appellant are make ... sale of shares of M/s. Parag Shilpa Investment Ltd. as unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the Act and consequently denying exemption of long- term capital gain of Rs. 97,38,148/- claimed under section 10(38) of the Act on the alleged ground that purchase of shares