← All Phrases

“short term capital gain”

Capital GainsSection 2(42A)Section 2(42A)1,986 judgments

The decision most relied on for short term capital gain is CIT v. Ace Builders (P) Ltd. (281 ITR 210), cited in 88 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on short term capital gain

CIT v. Ace Builders (P) Ltd.
281 ITR 210 · 2005 · High Court
88
citing judgments

The deeming fiction in Section 50, which treats capital gains from depreciable assets as short-term, applies only for the purpose of computing capital gains under that section. For other provisions, such as set-off of losses under Section 74 or deductions under Section 54E/54EC, the asset's original character (long-term or short-term) is to be considered.

CIT, Panji v. Dempo Company Limited
74 Taxmann.com 15 · 2016 · Supreme Court
62
citing judgments

The 20% tax rate under Section 112 applies to capital gains arising from the transfer of a depreciable asset, even if it is deemed a short-term capital gain under Section 50, provided the asset was held for more than 36 months. The fiction created by Section 50 for treating such gains as short-term does not alter the long-term nature of the asset for applying the tax rate under Section 112.

Raja Bahadur Kamakhya Narain Singh v. CIT
77 ITR 253 · 1970 · Supreme Court
49
citing judgments

The Supreme Court clarifies the distinction between income chargeable as capital gains and income taxable as business profits, guiding the assessment of whether a transaction constitutes a transfer of a capital asset or is in the nature of trade.

Indl. Development Co. (P) Ltd., 82 ITR 588 (SC). (ii). CIT v. H. Holck Larsen
288 ITR 641 · 2007 · Reported
41
citing judgments

Surplus received on sale and purchase of shares should be treated as capital gains (short-term or long-term as applicable) and not as business income.

Mrs. Madhu Kaul v. CIT
363 ITR 54 · 2014 · High Court
35
citing judgments

The period of holding a flat for capital gains purposes commences from the date of the allotment letter and the first installment payment, not from the later date of possession or registration.

Gopal Purohit v. JCIT
29 SOT 117 · 2009 · ITAT
33
citing judgments

The revenue is debarred from taking inconsistent stands on similar facts across different assessment years, adhering to the rule of consistency. Short-term capital gains are assessable under the head 'Capital Gains' only.

Raja Bahadur Visheshwar Singh v. CIT
73 ITR 652 · 1969 · Supreme Court
26
citing judgments

The intention of the assessee at the time of purchasing shares is a key criterion to determine capital gains treatment. This intention can be ascertained from how the purchase was treated in the assessee's books.

JCIT v. Montgomery Emerging Marketing Funds,\n
100 ITD 217 · 2006 · ITAT
23
citing judgments

Each transaction can be considered a separate source of income, allowing taxpayers to choose between the Income-tax Act and a Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) for each transaction. Section 70(2) of the Act does not prescribe an order for setting off specific short-term capital losses against specific short-term capital gains, favouring the taxpayer in interpretation.

Judgments citing short term capital gain

Sel Resources Ltd, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-3(1), Hyderabad

ITA 679/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Sept 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Us:

Section 147Section 50C

erred in confirming the action of the Id. AO in taxing a sum of Rs.1,84,99,000/- as Short Term Capital Gain in the hands of the assessee. The action of the Id. CIT(A) is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against the facts of the case. Relief may please

Chitra Avdhesh Mehta, Mumbai vs. ITO 33 (1) (3), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands

ITA 3229/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Aug 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain

Section 10(38)Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 250Section 68

revenue authorities. From the records, I noticed that the assessee is an individual who has earned income from Professional fee receipts, Short term Capital gains and Income from other sources and has filed her return of income on 26.07.2014 declaring her total income at Rs.4,54,940/-. She has also

Elizabeth Jose, Ernakulam vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle 1(1), Ernakulam

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 522/COCH/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin17 Jul 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2016-17 Elizbeth Jose .......... Appellant Choice House, P.V. Sreedharan Road Kumbalam, Ernakulam 682506 [Pan: Acfpj2569J] Vs. Dcit, Corporate Circle - 1(1), Kochi .......... Respondent Assessee By: ------- None ------- Revenue By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 06.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.08.2025 O R D E R This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 12.06.2025 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is An Individual. The Return Of Income For Ay 2016-17 Was Filed On 03.08 Disclosing Total Income Of Rs. 14,71,400/- & Unabsorbed Short Term Capital Loss Of Rs. 35,89,251/-. Against The Said Return Of Income, The Assessment Was Completed By The National Faceless Assessment Centre (Hereinafter Called "The Ao") Vide Order Dated 18.12.2018 Passed U/S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Accepting

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(47)

acquisition of the said flat is only Rs. 24,60,720/- plus cost of registration of Rs. 2,33,776/- The balance short term capital gain of Rs. 48,05,504/- was brought to tax. The AO further held that since the property was purchased from her husband only through

Arham Anmol Projects Private Limited, Village Valshind, Bhiwandi vs. Circle 1 Kalyan, Kalyan, Thane

In the result, the legal grounds challenging the validity of the assessment are dismissed

ITA 5011/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Mar 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokararham Anmol Projects Dcit Circle 1, Private Limited 2Nd Floor, Rani H. No. 1113, Ground Vs. Mansion, Murbad Floor, Arham Logiparc, Road, Kalyan Nh-3, Nashik Highway, (West), Thane, Village Valshind, Maharashtra – 421 Bhiwandi, Maharashtra – 301 421 302. Pan/Gir No. Aagca9644P (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Subhash Bains, Ld. Ar Revenue By Shri Surendra Mohan, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 28.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 26.03.2026

Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 194CSection 194ISection 234FSection 250

absence of compliance, the assessment was completed under section 147 read with section 144B. The Assessing Officer made the following additions: (i) Short Term Capital Gain – Rs. 4,54,49,186/- It was observed that the assessee had sold multiple properties during the relevant previous year. Since no explanation regarding ... furnished, the Assessing Officer treated the entire 3 Arham Anmol Projects Private Limited sale consideration of Rs. 4,54,49,186/- as Short Term Capital Gain, taking the cost of acquisition at Nil. (ii) Contract Receipts – Rs. 7,68,674/- The Assessing Officer noted contract receipts

Prajyoth Kumar Adi, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-4(1), Hyderabad

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for

ITA 2078/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Mar 2026AY 2020-21
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 270A

absence of the requisite details regarding the aforesaid sale transaction held the entire amount of Rs.1,08,40,000/- as short term capital gains (STCG) on the sale of the subject property. Also, the AO initiated penalty proceedings under section 270A of the Act for under reporting of income

Prajyoth Kumar Adi, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-4(1), Hyderabad

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 2077/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: us: “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order of the Id. CIT(A) is erroneous both on facts and in law, and is passed in gross violations of principles of natural justice.

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 270A

absence of the requisite details regarding the aforesaid sale transaction held the entire amount of Rs.1,08,40,000/- as short term capital gains (STCG) on the sale of the subject property. Also, the AO initiated penalty proceedings under section 270A of the Act for under reporting of income

Vijay Krishnaji Sawant, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 32(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 8991/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Mar 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarvijay Krishnaji Sawant Income Tax Officer-32(2)(1) Vijay Niwas, Ceaser Road, Kautilya Bhavan, Opp. Bombay Cambridge School, Mumbai-400 051 Vs. Amboli, Andheri Railway Station S.O., Mumbai-400 058 Pan/Gir No. Aapps 7027 Q (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Haridas Bhatt Respondent By : Shri Ankit Tiwari Date Of Hearing : 04.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.03.2026 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey:

For Appellant: Shri Haridas BhattFor Respondent: Shri Ankit Tiwari
Section 50CSection 50C(1)Section 54

benefit of delayed registration of the transfer deed, the assessee cannot claim deduction u/s. 54 of the Act. Thus, he proceeded to compute short term capital gain (‘STCG’ for short) at Rs.2,14,41,373/- and added back to the income of the assessee. 5. Though the assessee contested

Chanda Shamkant Khaire, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 5(1), Pune

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

ITA 2739/PUN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2739/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Chanda Shamkant Khaire, Vs. Income Tax Officer, A-1/18, Yashodhan Soc., Ward-5(1), Pune Chintamani Nagar, Bibwewadi, Pune 411037 Maharashtra Pan : Alnpk5242Q Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Sharad VazeFor Respondent: Shri Dayanand Jawalikar
Section 147Section 54

property and the same has already been shown in the income tax return of her husband. Similarly for the variation in respect of short term capital gain at Rs.6,41,185/-, he submitted that no such capital gain has been earned by the assessee. A prayer has been made ... benefit u/s.54 of the capital gain for the income earned from sale of immovable property. Similarly for the issue of addition of short term capital gain at Rs.6,41,185/-, it is stated that may be the assessee’s name is appearing as a joint holder in the Demat account

Mouna Selvaraj, Chennai vs. AO, Chennai

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

ITA 3836/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Mar 2026AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri. V. Mahadevan, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Addl. CIT
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 270A

assessment order u/s.144 r.w.s.147 of the Act dated 29.12.2023 by making an addition of entire Rs.54,00,000/- by treating it as a short term capital gain. Consequent to the assessment, penalty proceedings u/s.270A of the Act was initiated and statutory notices were issued. Since, the assessee did not respond

Kamini Velmurugan, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Mumbai

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

ITA 478/MUM/2026[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalassessment Year : 2016-17 Kamini Velmurugan, Income Tax Officer, 18/369, Rajeshwari Chs, Ward-42(2)(3), Subhasnagar, Vs. Kautilya Bhavan, Mumbai-400071. Mumbai-400051. Pan : Agzpn9256A (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Ms. Sailee Gujarathi For Revenue : Shri Aditya Rai, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 04-03-2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 17-03-2026 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [„Ld.Cit(A)‟], Dated 19-11-2025, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17. 2. Briefly, The Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessment In This Case Was Completed U/S. 147 R.W.S. 144 R.W.S. 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 („The Act‟), Vide Order Dt. 12-12-2023, Wherein The Ao Has Brought To Tax A Sum Of Rs. 42,50,000/- As Short Term Capital Gains U/S. 45 Of The Act In Absence Of Any Explanation/Evidences Submitted By The Assessee In Respect Of Sale Of Immoveable Property As Well As Cost Of Acquisition. The 2 Assessee Thereafter Carried The Matter In Appeal Before The Ld.Cit(A), Who Has Since Dismissed The Appeal On Account Of Delayed Filing & Against The Said Order, The Assessee Is In Appeal Before Us.

For Appellant: Ms. Sailee GujarathiFor Respondent: Shri Aditya Rai, Sr.DR
Section 147Section 45Section 45(1)

vide order dt. 12-12-2023, wherein the AO has brought to tax a sum of Rs. 42,50,000/- as Short Term Capital Gains u/s. 45 of the Act in absence of any explanation/evidences submitted by the assessee in respect of sale of immoveable property as well as cost ... failed to deduct cost of acquisition of Rs. 42,50,000/- and proportionate stamp duty of Rs. 2,12,500/- to compute the Short Term Capital Gain and where the same is considered, there would not be any Short Term Capital Gain 3 and, therefore, the addition

Rajiv Laxman Dalal HUF, Ahmedabad vs. ITO, Ward 5(2)(3), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 2559/AHD/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Mar 2026AY 2015-2016

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Bharat S. Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Mamta Singh, Sr. D.R
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

Income Tax Act. (ii) Undisclosed commission income of Rs.3,20,000/- being commission receipt reflected in 26AS. (iii) the addition of undisclosed short-term capital gains of Rs.5,72,990/-in ITR. 4. The assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee ... therefore the addition does not sustain at this juncture. Ground no. 2 is allowed. 11. As regards ground no. 3 relating to short term capital gain of Rs. 5,72,990/- without adjudicating the assessee’s re- conciliation, scrip wise working demat extracts and contract notes. The ld. A.R. submitted

Smt. Santosh Bamalwa, Dibrugarh vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Dibrugarh

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and that of the Cross Objections of the assessees are allowed

ITA 348/GTY/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati13 Mar 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri Rajesh Kumarsmt. Santosh Bamalwa Acit, Circle-1 C/O A.K. Varma, Ground Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, 2Nd Floor, Vs. Mahalaya Road, Dibrugarh- Milan Nagar, Dibrugarh-786003, 786001, Assam Assam (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aedpb9900P Assessee By : Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Santosh Kumar Karnani, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing: 09/03/2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 13/03/2026 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Santosh Kumar Karnani, Addl
Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

duly complied with by the assessee. During the impugned financial year, the assessee derived income by way of income from house property, short term capital gain and income from other sources. The assessee has sold 50,000 equity shares of Twenty First Century (India) Ltd. at a consideration

Ajit Singh, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 35(5), Delhi

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

ITA 2691/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. S.Rifaur Rahman & Sh. Sudhir Kumar**

Section 147Section 148Section 250

assessee did not respond. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment order after making the entire sale consideration of Rs.1,17,00,000/- as short term capital gains and added Rs.2,73,746/- as unexplained income. - 3. Aggrieved the order of the ld. AO the assessee preferred the appeal before

Davinder Kumar Mago, Punjabi Bagh vs. DCIT/ACIT Central Circle, Ddn, Dehradun

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 17/DDN/2026[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun12 Mar 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2019-20] Davinder Kumar Mago Vs Dcit/Acit 12/1, Punjabi Bagh, Central Circle, External Punjabi Bagh, Dehradun New Delhi-110026 Uttarakhand Pan-Ajhpm9802A Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Ajay Wadhwa, Adv. (Vc) Respondent By Ms. Poonam Sharma, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 10.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 12.03.2026 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order By Pr.Cit (Central), Kanpur At Meerut Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1861 (“The Act”) Dated 08.01.2026 Arising Out Of The Order Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Act.

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

under the head 'long term capital gain' to be taxed under Section 112A of the Act or normal provisions under the head 'short term capital gain', secondly, the nil ALV or lower ALV as discussed in regard to above stated properties, in the above part of this order vide Paragraph

Suman Nilakanth Masal, Ahemdnagar vs. ITO Ward-2, Ahmednagar

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

ITA 2279/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2018-19 Suman Nilakanth Masal Ito, Ward – 2, 983, Masal Colony, Rashin Karji, Vs. Ahmednagar Ahmednagar – 414403 Pan: Bvrpm6017J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Pramod S Shingte Department By : Shri Amit Bobde, Cit Date Of Hearing : 11-03-2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 12-03-2026

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde, CIT
Section 147Section 148Section 270ASection 69

asked the assessee to explain the source of cash deposit and investment in FD and asked the assessee to explain as to why short term capital gain should not be brought to tax. In absence of any proper explanation from the side of the assessee, the Assessing Officer completed ... r.w.s. 144B of the Act determining the total income of the assessee at Rs.87,56,480/- by treating Rs.53,60,000/- as short term capital gain and treating the time deposits of Rs.33 lakhs as unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act. The Assessing Officer thereafter initiated penalty proceedings

Nima Specific Family Trust, Ahmedabad vs. Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 70/AHD/2026[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Hemanshu Shah, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rameshwar P. Meena, Sr. D.R
Section 154Section 244A

instead of Rs 3,81,84,570/- as per return of income due to duplicate addition of short term capital gain of Rs. 27,40,000/-. 4. In law and in facts and circumstances of the Appellant case, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has grossly erred

Rajashree Annasaheb Patil, Belgaum, Karnataka vs. Kar-W-(521)(1), Belagavi

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

ITA 486/PAN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji10 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G D Padmahshalii T A. No.486/Pan/2025 (A.Y.2018-19) Rajashree Annasaheb Patil, I T O, Vs Near Murasidda Temple, National E Assessment . Gandhi Galli Bhiradi, Centre, Raybag,Belgaum-591217, Delhi Karnataka. Pan No. Ejfpp4199R (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent)

Section 144

filed, the AO considering the information available on record has invoked the provisions of Sec. 144 of the Act and made addition of short term capital gain of Rs.65,00,000/- and assessed the total income of Rs.65,00,000/- and passed the order u/sec 144r.w.s147 r.w.s144B ... reasonable cause and the appeal was dismissed on the ground of delay. The assessee has raised grounds of appeal challenging the addition of short term capital gains on sale of agricultural land made by the A.O and there could be various reasons for no proper compliance. Whereas the affidavit

Shree Sai Hospitality, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Mumbai, Thane

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 9019/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand V Mahadeokara.Y:2018-19 Shree Sai Hospitality Vs. Ito, Ward 2(1) C/32, Harias Dream Ashar It Park, 6Th Floor Park, Mira Bhayander Road No. 16Z, Wagle Road, Mira Road (E), Industraial Estate, Thane – Mira-Bhayandar – 400604. 401107. Pan/Gir No. Acyfs5492G (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 69

reassessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment ex parte under section 144 and made additions of Rs. 85,00,000/- as short-term capital gain and Rs. 85,00,000/- as unexplained investment under section 69, thereby assessing the total income at Rs. 1,70,00,000/-. 5. Aggrieved ... erred in in confirming the addition of Rs.85,00,000/- made by the Ld. AO. as alleged short term capital gains of the Act. The appellant, therefore, prays that the aforesaid addition of Rs.85,00,000/- be deleted. The appellant craves leave to alter, modify, amend or delete

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-2(2)(1), Mumbai, Aayakar Bhavan, Churchgate vs. Mumbai International Airport Limited, Mumbai

ITA 7035/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand V Mahadeokar

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 28Section 32(1)(ii)Section 35D

facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is right in holding that the short-term capital gains on temporary investment of surplus funds of Rs. 8,75,88,808/- during the construction phase should be reduced from project cost by merely following ... employees of AAI, taxability of development fee collected from passengers, deletion of disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D, treatment of short-term capital gains on temporary investment of surplus funds, taxability of Passenger Service Fee - Security Component (PSF-SC), and the rate of depreciation on runway, taxiway, apron

Mumbai International Airport Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(2)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6692/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand V Mahadeokara.Y:2014-15 Mumbai International Vs. Dcit, Circle – 2(2)(1) Airport Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, Mk Road 1St Floor, Terminal-1B, New Marine Lines, Mumbai – Chhatrpati Shivaji 400020. International Airport, Santacruz (E), Mumbai – 400099. Pan/Gir No. Aaecm6285C (Applicant) (Respondent) A.Y:2014-15 Dcit, Circle – 2(2)(1) Vs. Mumbai International Aayakar Bhavan, Mk Road Airport Ltd., New Marine Lines, Mumbai – 1St Floor, Terminal-1B, 400020. Chhatrpati Shivaji International Airport, Santacruz (E), Mumbai – 400099. Pan/Gir No. Aaecm6285C (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Saurabha Soparkar Virtually Appeared Revenue By Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Sr. Ar Date Of Hearing 25.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 09.03.2026 आदेश / Order Per Makarand V Mahadeokar, Am: These Cross Appeals Are Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Under Section 250 Of The Mumbai International Airport Ltd., Mumbai Income-Tax Act, 1961 Dated 05.08.2025 In The Case Of The Assessee For Assessment Year 2014–15. The Assessment In The Present Case Was Originally Completed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) Of The Act Vide Order Dated 30.12.2017. Since The Issues Involved In The Appeals Of The Revenue As Well As The Assessee Arise Out Of The Same Appellate Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By Way Of This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity.

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 28Section 32(1)(ii)Section 35D

facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is right in holding that the short-term capital gains on temporary investment of surplus funds of Rs. 8,75,88,808/- during the construction phase should be reduced from project cost by merely following ... employees of AAI, taxability of development fee collected from passengers, deletion of disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D, treatment of short-term capital gains on temporary investment of surplus funds, taxability of Passenger Service Fee – Security Component (PSF-SC), and the rate of depreciation on runway, taxiway, apron