← 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

Brijesh Chandwani, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle -6(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee for the assessment year 2020-2021 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1528/HYD/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Nov 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1527 & 1528/Hyd/2025 Assessment Years – 2016-2017 & 2020-2021 Brijesh Chandwani The Dcit, Circle-6(1), Vs. Hyderabad – 500 034 Hyderabad. Pan Adkpc1537H (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Ca Pawan Kumar Chakrapani राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Sri Ranjan Agrawala, Sr. Ar

For Appellant: CA Pawan Kumar ChakrapaniFor Respondent: Sri Ranjan Agrawala, Sr. AR
Section 133ASection 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 234A

Whether the learned Authorities below are justified in arriving at the unit loss of Rs. 1,53,71,792/-, and recalculating the short term capital gain, under the facts and circumstances of the case. 10. The Appellant denies himself liable to interest under section 234A, 2348 and 234C

Brijesh Chandwani, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle -6(1), Hyderabad

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed on this ground alone

ITA 1527/HYD/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Nov 2025AY 2016-2017
For Appellant: CA Pawan Kumar ChakrapaniFor Respondent: Sri Ranjan Agrawala, Sr. AR
Section 133ASection 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 234A

Whether the learned Authorities below are justified in arriving at the unit loss of Rs. 1,53,71,792/-, and recalculating the short term capital gain, under the facts and circumstances of the case. 10. The Appellant denies himself liable to interest under section 234A, 2348 and 234C

Pusa Nanda Kumar, Hyderabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle3-(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 154/HYD/2021[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Nov 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.154/Hyd/2021 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year 2007-2008) Sri Pusa Nanda Kumar, The Dcit, Hyderabad - 500001. Central Circle-3(1), Vs. Hyderabad – 500 004. Pan Acupp6100E (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Ca P Murali Mohan Rao राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Ms U Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: CA P Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: MS U Mini Chandran, CIT-DR
Section 131Section 153ASection 50CSection 68

assessee signed the sale deed as a consenting party. Thus, he has contended that when the entire income on account of short term capital gain itself is wrongly assessed in the hands of the assessee, then, the addition u/sec.50C is absolutely illegal and unsustainable. The Assessing Officer has made ... action and in the statement recorded u/sec.131 of the Act has admitted the income arising from the sale of land in question as short term capital gain and also surrendered the same to tax. Apart from the surrender of income arising from sale of land in question the assessee

Shri K.G Subbarama Setty, Bangalore vs. ACIT 5(2)(1) Bangalore, C R Building

In the result all the three appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 965/BANG/2025[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri Siddesh N Gaddi, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Balusamy N, D.R
Section 127Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250

capital gain accruing to the assessee on transfer of land under the joint development agreement is a long-term capital gain or a short-term capital gain. 12. In ITA No.962/Bang/2025 for the AY 2007-08, wherein the assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: ITA Nos.962 & 963/Bang/2025 ... gain accruing to the assessee on transfer of land under the joint development agreement is a long-term capital gain or a short-term capital gain. A capital asset is long term capital asset if it is held by the assessee for more than 36 months. The assessee submitted that

K A Sujit Chandan, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle Bengaluru.-5(2)(1), Bengaluru

In the result all the three appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 964/BANG/2025[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri Siddesh N Gaddi, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Balusamy N, D.R
Section 127Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250

capital gain accruing to the assessee on transfer of land under the joint development agreement is a long-term capital gain or a short-term capital gain. 12. In ITA No.962/Bang/2025 for the AY 2007-08, wherein the assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: ITA Nos.962 & 963/Bang/2025 ... gain accruing to the assessee on transfer of land under the joint development agreement is a long-term capital gain or a short-term capital gain. A capital asset is long term capital asset if it is held by the assessee for more than 36 months. The assessee submitted that

Agarwal Holdings Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3389/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Girish Agrawalagarwal Holdings Private Ltd. 211, 2Nd Floor Atlanta Arcade, Marol Church Road Marol, Andheri (East) Mumbai - 400059 ............... Appellant Pan: Aauca5094K V/S Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Mumbai-1 ……………… Respondent Room No.330, 3Rd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Road, Mumbai Assessee By : Shri Ashok Bansal Revenue By : Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Shri Ashok BansalFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, CIT-DR
Section 111ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263

erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue merely because the learned Assessing Officer had not made more enquiries with respect to Short Term Capital Gain earned by the appellant amounting to Rs. 8.16 Crore. 3. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax has erred in passing an order ... prejudicial to the interests of revenue without having found any mistake at all and merely because, in his opinion, this income of Short Term Capital Gain could have been possibly assessed under the head "business income". 4. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax has erred in passing an order

Hitesh Balchandra Rawal, Gandhinagar vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-2, Gandhinagar

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

ITA 1984/AHD/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice- & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalhitesh Balchandra Rawal, The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Poojan Plot No.781/2, Ward-2, Sector-2C, Gandhinagar. Gandhinagar-382002. [Pan :Afepr8090 N] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Vijay H Patel, Ar Respondent By: Shri Abhijit, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 25.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 27.11.2025

For Appellant: Shri Vijay H Patel, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit, Sr. DR
Section 69

That, the Hon’ble CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.1,83,55,000/- as alleged Short Term Capital Gain on sale of shares of Gandhinagar Hotels Ltd. 3. That, the appellant craves permission to modify, alter and amend, to withdraw or to raise addition ground eighter ... parties and perused the material available on record. The assessee has contested the addition of Rs. 1,83,55,000/- made as Short-Term Capital Gain, contending that he had not sold any such shares nor received any sale proceeds. He further claimed that his Demat account was fraudulently used

Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax, Ghaziabad vs. Arun Kumar, Ghaziabad

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the cross objection of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1035/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal & C.O 118/Del/2025 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Arun Kumar Income Tax 201-202, 2Nd Ii-F-3 Nehru Nagar Ghaziabad Floor Cgo Complex 201001 Uttar Pradesh Hapur Chungi Ghaziabad -201002 Pan No. Aeapk1314B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr.Dr Respondent By Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv Shri Somil Agarwal Adv

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151(2)Section 67Section 68

service tax and STT, net sale consideration of Rs.56,94,882/- was received and capital gain of Rs.45,08,090/- was taxed as short term capital gain. According to AO the transaction carried out by the assessee is a penny stocks and the assessee entered into a bogus transaction. After

Income Tax Officer-3(1), Raipur vs. Rahul Kathuria, Raipur

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 152/RPR/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur26 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.151 & 152/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2018-19 & 2019-20 The Income Tax Officer/Income Tax Officer-3(1) Raipur (C.G.)

For Appellant: Shri V.K. Jindal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 148

erred in adding the amount of sale consideration of Rs. 2,04,23,038/-, in place of short term capital gain amount of Rs.45,796/-.” 5.5.1. In the assessment order it is observed, inter alia, that;- "A Search and Survey action was conducted on a syndicate of persons ... appellant has traded in the shares of 'Oasis' as well as other listed companies. The appellant has earned Long Term as well as Short Term capital gain as well as Loss also. The appellant has carried out all the share transactions online, through a registered share broker namely, Exclusive Securities

Income Tax Officer, Raipur vs. Rahul Kathuria, Raipur

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 151/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur26 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.151 & 152/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2018-19 & 2019-20 The Income Tax Officer/Income Tax Officer-3(1) Raipur (C.G.)

For Appellant: Shri V.K. Jindal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 148

erred in adding the amount of sale consideration of Rs. 2,04,23,038/-, in place of short term capital gain amount of Rs.45,796/-.” 5.5.1. In the assessment order it is observed, inter alia, that;- "A Search and Survey action was conducted on a syndicate of persons ... appellant has traded in the shares of 'Oasis' as well as other listed companies. The appellant has earned Long Term as well as Short Term capital gain as well as Loss also. The appellant has carried out all the share transactions online, through a registered share broker namely, Exclusive Securities

Sathaiya Ganapathy, Pudukottai vs. ITO, Ward 1, Bardoli

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 330/SRT/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.329 & 330/Srt/2025 Assessment Years: (2015-16) (Physical Hearing) Sathaiya Ganapathy, Vs. Ito, Ts No.4114, South 3 Rd Street, Ward – 1, Pukukottai, Tamil Nadu - 622001 Bardoli "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Ahbpg2414Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) Appellant By Shri Mayank A. Ogriwala, Ca Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 02/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26/11/2025

Section 111ASection 16Section 24Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the learned Assessing Officer has erred in charging 30% tax rate on short term capital gain from share transaction instead of 15% applicable rate u/s. 111A of Income Tax Act. Your appellant further reserves his right to add, alter ... assessee purchased equity shares of Rs.14,42,043/- and sold equity shares of Rs.14,09,031/- during the FY 2014-15. Assessee earned short-term capital gains of Rs.35,543/- and long-term capital loss of Rs.68,556/-. However, aforesaid short-term capital gain of Rs.35,543/- was not offered

Sathaiya Ganapathy, Pudukottai vs. ITO, Ward 1, Bardoli

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 329/SRT/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.329 & 330/Srt/2025 Assessment Years: (2015-16) (Physical Hearing) Sathaiya Ganapathy, Vs. Ito, Ts No.4114, South 3 Rd Street, Ward – 1, Pukukottai, Tamil Nadu - 622001 Bardoli "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Ahbpg2414Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) Appellant By Shri Mayank A. Ogriwala, Ca Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 02/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26/11/2025

Section 111ASection 16Section 24Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the learned Assessing Officer has erred in charging 30% tax rate on short term capital gain from share transaction instead of 15% applicable rate u/s. 111A of Income Tax Act. Your appellant further reserves his right to add, alter ... assessee purchased equity shares of Rs.14,42,043/- and sold equity shares of Rs.14,09,031/- during the FY 2014-15. Assessee earned short-term capital gains of Rs.35,543/- and long-term capital loss of Rs.68,556/-. However, aforesaid short-term capital gain of Rs.35,543/- was not offered

Vellaisamy Natarajan, Pudhukurichi vs. ITO, Ward-1, Karaikudi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2520/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, J.C.I.TFor Respondent: 19.11.2025
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 69

account of source for purchases of the property bought on 24.11.2025 and an amount of Rs.1,50,00,000/- treated as short term capital gain being the difference between sale consideration of Rs.3.00 crores and which has been purchased for Rs.1.50 Crores (supra) on 24.11.2025. Aggrieved by the order

Income Tax Officer, Mumbai vs. Krupali Akash Shah, Mumbai

The appeal is allowed

ITA 4609/MUM/2025[2012]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Nov 2025

Bench: Hon'Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

exchange, both purchase and sale. Details of the same were also submitted. The capital gain of Rs.81,476 was included in short term capital gain and offered to Tax. A) The Ld. Income Tax Officer(LT(O) had wrongly examined the facts on record in proceeding with total believing "credit ... appellant did not have any LTCG and did not claim exemption for it. That, the addition made by the AO was for "short term capital gain" (STCG) of Rs.81,476/-(sale consideration Rs.876443/- minus purchase cost Rs.794967/-) and STCG was very much offered to tax. Details of which was submitted

Jatninder Singh Taneja, Delhi vs. ACIT Circle 30(1), New Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 6554/DEL/2025[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraassessment Year: 2006-07

Section 143(3)Section 48

Officer, allowing the interest on borrowed capital “only upto the date of the acquisition of the property”, for the purpose of computing as short term capital gains. It is in this limited context that the Tribunal hereby notices from a perusal of section 48 (i) and (ii) that what

Mukut Behari Lal Bhargava, Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Circle(2)1, Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2012/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwalmukut Behari Lal Bhargava, Acit, Lcg 05, 04B Laburnum Complex, Circle-2(1), 1 4Th Floor, Sushant Lok 1, Vs. Gurgaon. Block-A, Sector-28 Haryana-122009. Pan-Adipb9356P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Department By Shri Pradumna Kumar Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 03.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26.11.2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A) In Short] In Appeal No. Cit(A), Gurugaon-1/10738/2018-19 Dated 05.02.2025 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act, In Short) For Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Filed Its Return Of Income Declaring Total Income Of Rs.1,20,41,040/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Limited Scrutiny & During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, The Assessing Officer Has Issued Various Notices Which Were Replied By The Assessee. Mukut Behari Lal Bhargava Vs. Acit 3. Thereafter, The Assessment Order Was Passed At A Total Income Of Rs.1,79,36,182/- By Making Disallowance On Account Of Expenses Claimed On Costs Of Improvement Of Capital Asset, Disallowance Of Carry Forward Of Short Term Capital Gains & Long Term Capital Loss & Also Denied The Deduction Claimed U/S 80G Of The Act.

Section 250Section 271Section 80G

making disallowance on account of expenses claimed on costs of improvement of capital asset, disallowance of carry forward of short term capital gains and long term capital loss and also denied the deduction claimed u/s 80G of the Act. 4. Against the said order, the assessee preferred an appeal before ... assessee brought forward from Assessment Year 2008-09, 2011-12 and 2012-13 in respect of long term capital gain however, short term capital gain was brought Mukut Behari Lal Bhargava vs. ACIT forward from Assessment Year 2009-10 and 2014-15. Section 70 of the Act prohibits the allowability

A. T. Invofin Private Limited, Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle 26, Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1883/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2013-14]

Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 68

available at page 147 of the paper book show that without specifically pointing out as to it was a long-term or short-term capital gain or capital loss, the AO has added both to make the additions. The ld.CIT(A) has dealt with this as a mere calculation error

Krishna Parsuram Kamble, Mumbai vs. CIT Appeal, Commisoner of Income Tax

Appeal is Dismissed

ITA 2179/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am) Krishna Parsuram Kamble Ito, Ward-42(2)(3) Room No. 8 12/14, Arab Mumbai Building, R No. 8, 1St Floor Vs. Khetwadi, 12Th Lane Mumbai-400 004. Pan : Aqzpk6124E Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Hemanshu JoshiFor Respondent: None
Section 144

appeal before the ITAT stating that the addition made by Ld. AO with respect to accommodation entry of Long Term Capital Gains and Short Term Capital Gains are not correct as similar additions were made in the hands of others. The appellant claims that he is only a proxy

Viswanathan Krishnakumar, Aluva vs. Income Tax Officer, Aluva

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 606/COCH/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin24 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal filed by the assessee. Being aggrieved, the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal.

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kumar P J, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal. Snr AR
Section 147Section 148Section 24Section 250Section 54FSection 80C

business promotion expenses Rs.2,25,123/- 4. Disallowance of 33% of vehicle expenses and Depreciation on vehicle Rs. 7,32,411/- 5. Short Term Capital gains Rs.16,88,000/- The aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal filed ... promotion expenses; disallowance of 33% of vehicle 4 ITA 606/Coch/2025 VishwanathanKrishnakumar expenses along with depreciation on the vehicle; and addition on account of short-term capital gains. We have also examined the additional evidence furnished by the assessee, while respectfully relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court

Reginold John Bangera, Mumbai vs. ITO -Ward-42(30(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 6404/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Smt.Renu Jauhri7 (A.Y.2015-16)

For Appellant: Ms. Dinkle HariyaFor Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kosuri- Sr. AR
Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 48

erred in confirming the action of the A.O. in making addition of Rs. 97,25,000/- of the Act as alleged short term capital gains on sale of immovable properties being agricultural lands. 4.2 While doing so, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in - (i) Confirming the action