← 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

Abhishek Reddy Boyapally, Hyderabad vs. ITO (Int Taxn) - 2, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 352/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.352/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2015-16) Shri Abhishek Reddy Vs. Income Tax Officer Boyapally, Hyderabad International Taxation-2, Pan: Bodpb0397F Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Ca Y. V. Bhanu Narayan Rao रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Dr.Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit(Dr) सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 15/10/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 17/10/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Shri Abhishek Reddy Boyapally (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Assessment Order Passed By The Ito, International Taxation-2, Hyderabad (“Ld. Ao”), Dated 25.12.2024 For The A.Y 2015-16. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: CA Y. V. Bhanu Narayan RaoFor Respondent: Dr.Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT(DR)
Section 139Section 144BSection 144CSection 147Section 148Section 148A

draft order under section 144C of the Act proposing addition of Rs.1,892/- under income from other sources and Rs.37,21,500/- towards Short Term Capital Gain on the sale of immovable property. Against the said draft order the assessee filed objections on 02.04.2024 before the Learned Dispute Resolution Panel ... with section 144B of the Act on 25.12.2024, making additions of Rs.1,892/- under income from other sources and Rs.18,60,750/- towards Short Term Capital Gain on the sale of immovable property., thereby determining the total income of the assessee at Rs.18,62,642/-. 5. Aggrieved by the final

Indradhanu Textile Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 3(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2417/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalassessment Year : 2016-17 Indradhanu Textile Ito, Ward-3(2)(1), Private Limited, Room No. 673A, 104, Dalamal Tower Vs. 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Free Press Journal Marg, M.K. Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400021. Pan : Aacci9288F (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Nishit Gandhi For Revenue : Shri Aditya Rai, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 08-10-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 14-10-2025 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld.Addl/Jcit(A)-1, Coimbatore [„Ld.Cit(A)‟], Dated 06-02-2025, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17, Wherein The Assessee Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) ["Ld. Cit (A)"] Erred In Assessing The Income Of The Appellant At Rs. 9,49,588/- As Against Returned Income Of Rs. 1,15,350/- The Appellant Prays That The Returned Income Be Considered As Correct Income.

For Appellant: Shri Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Shri Aditya Rai, Sr.DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

assessee was found not acceptable and gains arising out of such sale of property of Rs. 15,06,900/- was treated as Short Term Capital Gain. 3. The AO further observed that the assessee-company has claimed renovation expenses of Rs. 6,26,632/- and professional fees

Vitp Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle8(1), Hyderabad

ITA 573/HYD/2024[AY 2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Oct 2025

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.573 & 574/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Vitp Private Limited Vs. Dy. Cit Hyderabad Circle 8 (1) Pan:Aaccv2672G Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धारिती द्वारा / Assessee By: Advocates Percy Perdiwala & Mahima Goud राजस्व द्वारा / Revenue By:: Shri Shahnawaz-Ul-Rahman, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 23/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Pronouncement: 08/10/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: These Two Appeals Are Filed By Vitp Private Limited (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-2, Hyderabad, (“Ld.Pcit”), Dated 30/03/2024 For The A.Y.2017-18. As Both The Appeals Are Interrelated & Belongs To The Same, Both Are Heard Together & One Consolidated Order Is Being Passed For The Sake Of Brevity.

For Appellant: Advocates Percy Perdiwala andFor Respondent: : Shri Shahnawaz-ul-Rahman
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(3)Section 263Section 80Section 801A

Schedule CYLA of ITR of AY 2017-18 (page 47), the assessee has a business income of Rs 7,42,25,071/-, short term capital gain of Rs 24,66,759/- and income from other sources of Rs 8,29,85,866/- aggregating to Rs 15,96, 77,696/- which ... deduction u/s 801A should be claimed against eligible business income of Rs 7,42,25,071/- only and the claim of deduction against short term capital gain and income from other sources aggregating to Rs 8,54,52,625 (2466759+82985866) is not in order and should be brought