← 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

Anju Meel, Jaipur vs. I.T.O. Ward 3(4), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 741/JPR/2025[A.Y. 2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Nov 2025

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. G. M. Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Chaudhary, Addl. CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 292B

incurred for vacating sold land from unauthorized occupants for which sworn and uncontroverted as affidavit was submitted which is allowable deduction of short term capital gains. 3. Succinctly, the fact as culled out from the records is that in this case notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued ... /142(1) of Act on 02.06.2015 for the reason, the assessee had sold two agricultural lands (capital assets) giving rise to short term capital gains under the provisions of sec. 50C of Act. Thereafter the reassessment records were transferred to jurisdictional AO {I.T.O. Ward 3(4), Jaipur} who, after issuing

DCIT(CC)-8(3), Mumbai vs. Girraj Kishor Agrawal, Mumbai

In the result, the grouds of appea raised by the revenue are

ITA 3769/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Smt. Renu Jauhri(Physical Hearing)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 151Section 254(1)Section 68

that assessee has invested in a number of scripts ranging from 26 to 47 F.Y. 2008-09 to 2012-13 and has shown short term capital gain and long term capital gain in various years. Thus, the assessee is a regular investor in share market. ITA No. 3769/Mum/2025 ... that assessee has invested in a number of scripts ranging from 26 to 47 F.Y. 2008-09 to 2012-13 and has shown short term capital gain and long term capital gain in various years. ITA No. 3769/Mum/2025 & C.O. No. 215/Mum/2025 Girraj Kishor Agrawal It was held that the assessee

Mahadev Infracon, Ahmedabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Cir 3(2)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 477/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Prashant Srivastav, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)

dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 5. The Ld. A.R. submitted that in the relevant assessment year 2017-18, the assessee has yielded short term capital gain of Rs. 81,391/- and in subsequent yeas it was Rs. 8,19,200/- and in both the assessment years the said amount

Aravindhan Bharathi, Tiruchirappalli vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Trichy

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2014/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri. A.G.Sudharshanan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, J.C.I.T
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151A

Thereafter, the assessment is completed by the National Faceless Assessment Centre, by making an addition of (a) Rs.6,04,290/- as income from short term capital gain and (b) Rs.2,94,000/- as the income of the assessee, which was claimed by the assessee as agricultural income. Aggrieved, the assessee

Pjp Founation Trust, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 30(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA

ITA 5000/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 147Section 250

present case the order of assessment was passed u/s 147 r.w.s 144 of the Act, thereby making additions on account of short term capital gain. Aggrieved by the said order the assessee preferred appeal before Ld. CIT(A). 6. At the outset Ld. AR drawn our attention that the assessee

Disha Jay Thakkar, Dahisar East vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-45, Mumbai, Delhi

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

ITA 2497/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Beena Pillai & Smt.Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh ChokshiFor Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kosuri- Sr. AR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 234BSection 250

share transactions. 4. The learned Assessing Officer and Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal has erred in law and in facts by treating short term capital gain is an income of the assessee while the benefit of short term capital gain has been received by Shri Narendra Shah. 5. The learned

Shreyas Anil Talpade, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai

In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed

ITA 6913/MUM/2024[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Beena Pillai & Smt.Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra Shah & ShriFor Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kosuri- Sr. AR
Section 131Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 37(1)Section 69B

assessee had filed return for A.Y. 2011-12 on 30.09.2011 declaring total income of Rs.1,04,69,840/- from salary, business income, short term capital gains and other sources. The case was selected for scrutiny and order u/s.143(3) was passed on 17.01.2014 determining total income at Rs.1

Kaushaliya Devi Dhoot, Jodhpur vs. ACIT, Circle-3, Jodhpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 779/JODH/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur30 Oct 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon'Ble & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble

Section 11Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 246ASection 801A

passed by the Ld.AO-NaFAC. For the appellate year under consideration, ROI was selected for scrutiny under CASS on the issue of 'Large short term capital gains declared u/s 11 IA and First Year of Deduction claimed u/s 801A/801AB/801AC/801BA'. Ld.AO-NaFAC reached following finding after verification of the issue

Smt. Satyawati Marwaha Through Legal Heir Sh, Chander Sheikhar Marwaha, Jalandhar vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar

In the result, the appeal for Asstt

ITA 347/ASR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: Sh. Ashray Sarna, C. A
Section 10(38)Section 132Section 144Section 144rSection 147Section 148Section 151Section 250(6)Section 68

term capital loss. That assessee incurred transaction and declared the same in his return of income which is also reproduced below: Income From Short Term Capital Gain Particulars: - shares Sale Proceeds 619737626 Less: Cost of Acquisition u/s 48 (-) 619768244) Short Term Capital Loss (-) 30618 Apart from these assessee had long

Smt. Satyawati Marwaha Through Legal Heir Sh. Chander Sheikhar Marwaha, Jalandhar vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar

In the result, the appeal for Asstt

ITA 346/ASR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: Sh. Ashray Sarna, C. A
Section 10(38)Section 132Section 144Section 144rSection 147Section 148Section 151Section 250(6)Section 68

term capital loss. That assessee incurred transaction and declared the same in his return of income which is also reproduced below: Income From Short Term Capital Gain Particulars: - shares Sale Proceeds 619737626 Less: Cost of Acquisition u/s 48 (-) 619768244) Short Term Capital Loss (-) 30618 Apart from these assessee had long

Kirti Karsandas Nayak, Umbergaon vs. ITO Ward-5, Vapi

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

ITA 659/SRT/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2011-2012 Kirti Karsandas Nayak, Ito Ward-5, Plot No. 244/28, Gidc, Fortune Square, Chala Road, Umbergaon-396171. Vs. Vapi-396191. Pan No. Abbpn 3355 M Appellant Respondent

For Respondent: Mr. Parin Shah, CA
Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

assessment u/s 148 of the Act. 3. Ld. NFAC erred in law and on facts in confirming addition of Rs. 879390 as short term capital gain Kirti Karsandas Nayak 2 ignoring fact that appellant purchase car which does ignoring fact that appellant purchase car which does ignoring fact that appellant

Smt. Pushpa Agrawal, Indore vs. ITO Ward 5(2), Indore, Aaykar Bhawan, Opposite White Church, Residency Area

Appeal is allowed

ITA 499/IND/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(14)(iii)Section 54B

Page 1 of 18 Smt. Pushpa Agrawal ITA No. 499/Ind/2024 - AY 2012-13 In the return so filed, the assessee declared short-term capital gain of Rs. 68,11,461/- from three transactions of sale of 5 pieces of agricultural land [details mentioned in Para 10 of assessment-order] situated ... case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in affirming the impugned addition made by Ld. AO of Rs. 67,56,545/as short-term capital gain. The said addition being illegal and erroneous deserves to be deleted and may kindly be deleted in toto. 3. On facts and circumstances

Sh. Shashank Poddar, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Circle-3, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 850/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, C.AFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR
Section 250Section 57

income of Rs.54,35,250/-. During the year under consideration, the assessee had positive income from salary and 3 Sh. Shashank Poddar, Jaipur. short term capital gain, whereas he had negative income (loss) under the head Income from house property and Income from other sources, which

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur vs. Hem Chand Jain, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 670/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, Ld. CIT &
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 250

No.670/JPR/2025 & CO No. 24/JPR/2025 Hem Chand Jain, Jaipur Rs.22,94,920/- comprising of exempt LTCG of Rs.1,06,77,049/- and short term capital gain of Rs.10,78,647/-. The short termcapital gain consists of gain on sale of shares of Gini Silk Mills Ltd. of Rs.3 ... prices prevalent on that day. 3. The ld. AO failed to contradict the evidence adduced by the respondent to support the claim of Short-term capital gain. 4. The statements were recorded at the back of the respondent, without affording an opportunity of cross examination. Hence, the evidence

Uday Punj, Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-19(1), Delhi

In the result, the reassessment proceedings initiated in this case is bad in law

ITA 3087/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Uday Punj, Vs. Dcit, Circle 19 (1), Chimes, New Delhi. 55, Sultanpur Farms, New Delhi – 110 030. (Pan : Aaapp1309F) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rahul Khare, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 17.09.2025 Date Of Order : 30.10.2025 Order Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-29, New Delhi [For Short ‘Ld. Cit (A)] Dated 18.03.2025 For Assessment Year 2013-14 Raising Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. That Learned Cit-A Erred In Fact & In Law In Confirming The Reopening Of The Case U/S 147/148 Without Appreciating The Facts Which Is Not Only Bad In Law But Also Against The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case.

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Khare, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 73

circumstances of the case. 3. The learned CIT-A erred in fact and in law in not allowing the setting off of short term capital gains with the b/f assessed short term capital loss of Rs.3,44,91,848/- pertaining to A.Y. 2008-09.” 2. Brief facts of the case ... against the returned income of Rs.43,04,500/-. The AO observed at para 2 of the assessment order that assessee had declared short term capital gain of Rs.62,48,670/- during the year under consideration which was set off with the losses of assessment years

Kalpanaben Vadilal Shah, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-5(3)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 928/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Oct 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Jaimin Shah, AR
Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 1ISection 210Section 234ASection 250Section 270ASection 68

valid in law and require to be quashed ab initio. The appellant has provided all material and evidences to prove the genuineness Short Term Capital Gain earned during the year under consideration, however without considering various submissions and material available on record, addition made mealy on mechanical manner

Kailash Bhil, Ajmer vs. ITO Ward 2(3), Ajmer

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

ITA 175/JPR/2025[2012-13]Status: FixedITAT Jaipur28 Oct 2025AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Hemang Gargieya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav Awasthi, JCIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234A

well as on the facts of the case in confirming the addition of Rs.55,71,875/- made by the AO as unexplained short term capital gain on the subjected agricultural property. Hence, the addition so made and confirmed being contrary to the provisions of law and facts kindly be deleted ... registered in his name on 20-05-2009 but no cost is mentioned. Thus according to the Department it is evident that short term capital gain income chargeable to tax amounting to Rs.57,21,825/- has escaped assessment for the year under consideration by reason of failure on the part

Milan Saini, Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Circle- 2, Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2335/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Milan Saini, Vs. Dcit, 37, Centrum Plaza, Dlf Golf Circle-2. Course Road, Sector 53, Gurgaon Gurgaon (Haryana) Pan: Braps1366P (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 17Section 250(6)Section 28

erred on facts and in law in holding (in alternate) that compensation arising for alleged transfer of rights is taxable as short-term capital gains and not long-term capital gains as returned by the appellant. 5. That the CIT(A)/ assessing officer erred on facts ... transfer of long-term capital asset. 6.11 Re: Attempt of lower authorities to tax compensation under the head 'Salary' or 'PGBP or as 'Short term capital gains' is invalid; rebuttal to allegations/ observations of the assessing officer and CIT(A) (a). Ld. Assessing Officer has assessed the aforesaid compensation received

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalgaon vs. Taradevi Ratanlal Bafna, Jalgaon

ITA 498/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: S/Shri Suchek Anchaliya and Tushar NagoriFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde, CIT
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153A

office premises of more than 32 share broking entities who have accepted that they were actively involved in bogus long term capital gain / short term capital gain scam. He submitted that one such action was carried out in the case of M/s PFLIL, a Hyderabad based company on which survey ... subsequent actions revealed that the shares of the company were manipulated to generate bogus long CO Nos.2 to 5/PUN/2025 term capital gain / short term capital gain for various beneficiaries. Referring to the staternents of Shri. P Amresh Kumar, MD of PFLIL, Shri Abhinandan Jain, Director of PFLIL and Shri. Naresh

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalgaon vs. Taradevi Ratanlal Bafna, Jalgaon

In the result, all the above 6 appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and

ITA 497/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: S/Shri Suchek Anchaliya andFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde, CIT
Section 10(38)Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153A

transactions relating to the sale and purchase of the scrip, details of STT paid, audited books of account, statement showing the computation of short term capital gain, details of trade order, trade name, security quantity etc. These details are also produced before me as part of the Paper Book ... office premises of more than 32 share broking entities who have accepted that they were actively involved in bogus long term capital gain / short term capital gain scam. He submitted that one such action was carried out in the case of M/s PFLIL, a Hyderabad based company on which survey