← 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

Hansaben Girishbhai Shah, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed on this legal ground

ITA 1279/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1279/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Hansaben Girishbhai Shah The Dy.Cit बनाम/ 139, V.R. Shah Smruti Circle-2(1)(1) V/S. Shikshan Mandir Ahmedabad – 380 015 Opp. Yogeshwar Nagar Society Nr. Dharnidhar Derasar Vasna Ahmedabad – 380 007 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aajpd 7188 H (अपीलाथ$/ Appellant) (%& यथ$/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Jaimin Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Abhijit Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 26/08/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Dated 27/03/2024 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-2018. Hansaben Girishbhai Shah Vs. Dy.Cit, Cir-2(1)(1) Asst.Yeaar 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Jaimin Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Sr.DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment u/s.143(3) of the Act and the above issue of trading in shares and disclosing Short Term Capital Gain (STCG) was duly examined during the original scrutiny proceedings. That the assessee had earned STCG by trading in shares of the Kaushal

Smt. Manju Singh, Kanpur vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward 3(2), Kanpur

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 163/LKW/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow25 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2015-16 Smt. Manju Singh V. The Ito L-12, Gsvm Medical College Ward 3(2) Kanpur Kanpur Tan/Pan:Aebps3395D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against Order Dated 12.10.2021, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For Assessment Year 2015-16. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Was Engaged In Trading Of Shares, Securities & Mutual Funds. The Assessee Filed Her Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration On 11.09.2015, Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.3,05,350/-. In The Computation Of Income, The Assessee Had Claimed Rs.55,99,694/- As Exempt Income Under Section 10(38) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act’) On Sale Of Mutual Funds. However, As Per The Assessing Officer (Ao), The Assessee Had Earned Exempt Income Of Rs.50,81,234/- On Sale Of Mutual Funds And, Accordingly, The Assessee Had Claimed Excess

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 48Section 68

assessee had also debited an amount of Rs.3,94,724/- as interest on delayed payment from purchase cost of shares while calculating the Short Term Capital Gain on sale of shares. The AO held the same as not allowable under section 48 of the Act and added the same also ... sustaining the addition of ITA No.163/LKW/2022 Page 3 of 7 Rs.3,94,724/- made by the AO on account of Short Term Capital Gain by observing that the said payment was in the nature of interest paid on borrowings, which was not an allowable expenditure. 4.0 Now, the assessee

Murali Mohan Reddy Bonthu, Vijayawada vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Vijayawada

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 266/VIZ/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam22 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.266/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18) Murali Mohan Reddy Bonthu V. Income Tax Officer – Ward – 3(1) 14/4, Flat No. 503 Cr Building, 1St Floor Annex Sree Satya Sai Towers M.G. Road, Vijayawada – 522002 Andhra Pradesh Main Road Nunna Andhra Pradesh - 521212 [Pan:Aiopb5077E] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Shri I. Kama Sastry, Ca राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr.Aparna Villuri, Sr.Ar

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 54F

relevant to this assessment year. 2. The Assessment Unit, National FacelessAssessment Centre is not justified in bring to tax Rs.41,07,000/- as short term capital gains from transfer of five residential flats out of 11 flats received by the assessee as a consideration from joint development agreement executed ... Centre is not justified in confirming the same. 3. The Assessment Unit, National FacelessAssessment Centre is not justified in computing tax on the short term capital gains of Rs.41,07,000 at the rate of 60% under section 115BBE 4. All the above grounds of appeal are mutually exclusive

Shanthi Violet Rodrigues, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1475/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year: 2020-21 Shanthi Violet Rodrigues, The Income Tax Officer, Cp4 Wing-1, 4178, Ward-4(2)(1), Sobha City Casa, Bengaluru. Paradise Enclave, Devin Paradise, Vs. Jalavayuvihar, Bengaluru-560043. Pan No : Avmpr6706M Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, Ca Respondent By : Sri Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate-Standing Counsel For Revenue Date Of Hearing : 21.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.08.2025 O R D E R Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote: This Is An Appeal Filed By Shanthi Violet Rodrigues Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (Nfac) (In Short “Ld. Cit(A)”) Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”) For Asst Year 2020-21 On 05/06/2025 Emanating From Assessment Order Dated 24/02/2025 Passed U/S. 147 R.W.S 144B Of The Act. Submissions Of The Ld. Ar: 2. The Ld. Ar Invited Our Attention To The Assessment Order Dated 24/02/2025 For Asst. Year 2020-21. The Ld. Ar Submitted

For Appellant: Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, CA
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250

date of purchase of the impugned property. However, in the assessment order the Ld. AO has taxed this income under the head ‘short term capital gains’. This is incorrect and bad in law as the property was purchased in 2007 and hence the asset qualifies for long term capital gains