“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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kamlesh Sharma, Raipur vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Raipur

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

ITA 70/RPR/2026[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur06 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 70/Rpr/2026 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2020-21) Kamlesh Sharma, House No.109, Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Harihant Nagar, Sarona, Tax, Circle-1(1), Central Revenue Ring Road No.1, Raipur-492001, Cg Building, Civil Lines, Raipur-492001 Pan: Bppps4514C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : None (Adjournment Petition Filed) राज" की ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 20/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of : 06/03/2026 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am: This Appeal For Assessment Year (‘Ay’) 2020-21 Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 18.12.2025 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), [‘Cit(A)’], National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Nfac’), Delhi Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’).

For Appellant: None (Adjournment Petition filed)For Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 10Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151ASection 249(3)Section 250Section 57Section 69

exempt allowance u/s 10: iv. Addition of Rs. 1,10,00,000.00 u/s 69; and v. Addition of Rs. 39,497.00 as Short Term Capital Gain. All these additions are liable to be deleted. 4. That the appellant reserves the right to add, alter or modify any ground of appeal

Vinod Kumar Kailashchandra Verma, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3), Raipur

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

ITA 69/RPR/2026[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur06 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 69/Rpr/2026 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2015-16) Vinod Kumar Khailashchandra Verma, Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(1), House No.496/9, Avanti Vihar, Sector-2, Central Revenue Building, Telibandha, Raipur-492001 (C.G.) Civil Lines, Raipur, C.G. 492001 Pan: Aanpv5964B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : None. (Adjournment Petition Filed.) राज" की ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 20/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of : 06/03/2026 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am:

For Appellant: None. (Adjournment petition filed.)For Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 249(2)Section 249(3)Section 250Section 69A

Addition of Rs.2,89,486.00 as Income from Other sources; and iii. Addition of Rs.59,28,000.00 as Short Term Capital Gain. All these additions are liable to be deleted. 5. That the appellant reserves the right to add, alter or modify any ground of appeal.” 2.1 The 1st ground

Meenachi Sundaram, Tuticorin vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Tuticorin

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

ITA 3239/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George Kand Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3239/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Mr. Kumarasubramanian, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Aswathy, JCIT

Section 147Section 250

Since the assessee did not respond to the notices issued, the A.O passed an ex-parte order treating the entire sale proceeds as short term capital gains in the hands of the assessee. Aggrieved, the assessee filed further appeal before the CIT(A). Even before the CIT(A), the assessee ... purchase and sale deed of the impugned property to submit that the A.O is not correct in treating the entire amount received as short term capital gain without reducing the cost of purchase. Having pursued the materials on record and the facts peculiar to assessee's case, we are inclined

Siddhi Chhajed, Rajnandgaon vs. Income Tax Officer Ward Rajnandaon, Rajnandgaon

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 832/RPR/2025[2024-25]Status: HeardITAT Raipur03 Mar 2026AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

For Appellant: Shri Parasmal Chhajed, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 87A

been denied in the assessment year 2024-25. That in ITA No.831/RPR/2025 for A.Y.2024-25, the exemption claimed u/s. 87A of the Act against short term capital gains was Rs.25,000/- and in ITA No.832/RPR/2025 for A.Y.2024-25, the exemption claimed u/s. 87A of the Act against short term capital gains

Titiksha Chhajed, Rajnandgaon vs. Income Tax Officer Ward Rajnandgaon, Rajnandgaon

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 831/RPR/2025[2024-25]Status: HeardITAT Raipur03 Mar 2026AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

For Appellant: Shri Parasmal Chhajed, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 87A

Ketankumar Thakorbhai Patel, Anand vs. The ITO, Ward-1 Previously Ward-3, Anand

ITA 2152/AHD/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Mar 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri B T Thakkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Veerbadram Vislavath, Sr. D.R

Section 80C

Learned CIT-Appeals, (NFAC) has erred in law and facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 9,19,375/- out of short term capital gain as the same has been added in the returned income without application of mind. I.T.A No. 2152/Ahd/2025 Ketankumar Thakorbhai Patel

Pioneer Independent Trust, Bangalore vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengaluru-2, Bengaluru

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

ITA 1143/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Huilgol, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Muthu Shankar, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 55(2)(ac)

notice issued u/s. 142(1) on 22/07/2022 in which in Q.No. 56, the AO had sought for the complete details of the short term capital gain / loss and long term capital gain / loss scriptwise or datewise. The assessee filed their reply dated 08/08/2022, and gave the details in respect ... said Q.No. 56 vide his reply in S.No. 45. The assessee also enclosed the details of the long term capital gains / short term capital gains by way of annexure – 16 of the submissions. Similarly, the AO in Q.No. 34 had sought for the reconciliation statements which was also filed

Mummalaneni Raghavan, Guntur vs. Income Tax Officer, Guntur

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 628/VIZ/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam27 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Itat, Stating That The Reopening Of Assessment U/S 147 Of The Act Was Based Merely On System Generated Information, Which Is Invalid & Without Any Tangible Material. In The Grounds Of Appeal, It Was Mentioned That The Assessment U/S 147 Is Beyond Time Limit Prescribed & Hence, The

Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 194ASection 56

grounds of appeal that the Joint Development Agreement entered into by the appellant with the builder was cancelled and hence the levy of short term capital gains tax by the Ld.AO, which was confirmed by the Ld.CIT(A) is incorrect and hence, the addition made by the Ld.AO relating ... short term capital gains should be deleted. 4. From the assessment order, it is observed that the assessment was completed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 and section 144B of the Act and the assessment order was passed on 22.03.2024. Short point for adjudication is, whether the assessee is liable for paying

Mummalaneni Raghavan, Guntur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Guntur

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 627/VIZ/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam27 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 194ASection 56

Pankaj Agarwal, Kanpur vs. The AO Special Range, Kanpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 122/LKW/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow27 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2017-18 Pankaj Agarwal, 7/151, Ratan Vs. The Assessing Officer, Majestic, Opp. Sony World, Special Range, Kanpur- Swaroop Nagar, Kanpur-208002 208001 Pan: Abnpa4816E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Rakesh Garg, Adv Revenue By: Sh. R.R.N. Shukla, Addl Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 23.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 27.02.2026 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Dated 9.01.2024 Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Ao, Special Range, Kanpur, Passed Under Section 143(3) On 26.09.2019. 2. It Is Seen From The Record That The Appeal Is Delayed By 2 Days. However, Since The Date Of Filing Is Preceded By Saturday & Sunday, Wherein The Offices Of The Itat Were Closed, The Delay Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Admitted For Hearing. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under: - “1. Because The Cit(A) Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Treating The Loss Of Rs.42,17,895/- Being Loss On Account Of Trading In Derivatives As A Capital Loss As Against Business Loss Claimed By The Assessee, Which Finding Of The Ao Being Contrary To Facts, Bad In Law, The Addition Made Be Deleted.

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. R.R.N. Shukla, Addl CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 43(5)Section 44ASection 72Section 74

further held that short term capital loss of the current year could only be set off 3 A.Y. 2017-18 Pankaj Agarwal against short term capital gain during the year and therefore, he upheld the disallowance made by the AO. 5. The assessee has come in appeal before ... guidelines appear to have been reproduced, in an effort to show that derivatives can be considered to be a capital asset attracting short term capital gains or losses. To our mind, the issue in the present case is not whether derivatives could be regarded to be a short-term capital

Income Tax-Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), Vadodara vs. Amit Jayantibhai Patel, Vadodara

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 1957/AHD/2024[2017]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Feb 2026

Bench: Ld. Cit(A) Who Deleted The Additions By Observing As Follows: (A) Addition On Account Of Unexplained Money U/S. 69A Of Rs.20,20,950/-

Section 147Section 148Section 69Section 69A

Rs.20,20,950/- (b) Addition on account of unexplained investment u/s.69 of Rs.99,30,528/- (c) Addition on account of Short Term Capital Gain of Rs.14,76,124/- 3. Aggrieved against the reassessment order, assessee filed an appeal before Ld. CIT(A) who deleted the additions by observing as follows ... Rs.99,30,528/- is deleted. Accordingly, ground no. 2 of the appeal is allowed. (c) Addition on account of Short Term Capital Gain of Rs.14,76,124/- “The appellant submitted that he along with its partners of the land had sold property worth Rs.1,00,00,000/- and appellant share

Nimish Vivek Juvekar, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 20(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 6829/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

For Appellant: Shri Dinesh ShahFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Afaqui, SR. AR

Section 10(38)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151A

response to notice u/s 148 of the Act. Thus, the Assessing Officer treated the redevelopment transaction as transfer giving rise to short-term capital gain of 21,60,84,565/-, adopting cost of acquisition at Nil and treating the holding period as less than 36 months. The Assessing Officer ... order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 on 11% March, 2024 alongwith making addition of short term capital gain of Rs. Rs.1,60,84,565/- also made other additions of gain arising on transfer of securities, failure to explain source of payment of credit card amounting to Rs.7,955,37/-, interest

Nishit Praful Gogri, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 3, Thane

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 3632/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhari, Sr. AR

Section 10(38)Section 148Section 250

natural justice. 6. The Ld. AO as well as Ld. CIT(A) had deliberately ignored the fact that the appellant had earned short term capital gain as against the long term capital gain recorded in the reason recorded for the re-opening of the assessment. Further, the contract notes, shares

Nishit Praful Gogri, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 3, Thane

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 3631/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhari, Sr. AR

Section 10(38)Section 148Section 250

Sheetal Rajeev Gadre, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 34(3)(2), Mumbai

ITA 8534/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ashish ThakurdesaiFor Respondent: Shri Bhagirath Ramawat

Section 115BSection 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148ASection 151ASection 68

penny stock script was INR.16,25,210/- against which the Assessee received aggregate Sale Consideration of INR.17,60,264/-. The Assessee had earned short- term capital gains and has also suffered short-term capital loss while transacting in the alleged penny stock script. Thus, making net short term capital gains ... addition made by the Assessing Officer to INR.1,35,054/- to be brought to tax in the hands of the Assessee as Short-Term Capital Gains. Accordingly, the balance addition and differential tax demand stands deleted. 10. In view of the aforesaid, Ground No. 2 raised by the Assessee

Pragnaben Umeshbhai Yagnik, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-1(2)(1), Ahmedabad

The appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2529/AHD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.2529/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2015-16 Pragnaben Umeshbhai Yagnik The Ito बनाम/ 118, Saket Raw House Ward-1(2)91) V/S. B/H. Memnagar Gram Ahmedabad – 380 015 Panchayat Memnagar S.O. Ahmedabad – 380 025 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aahpy 1844 P (अपीलाथ)/ Appellant) (*+ यथ)/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate Revenue By : Shri Rameshwar P. Meena, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25/02/2026 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 28/06/2024 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16. 2. The Assessee, In This Appeal, Is Aggrieved By The Action Of The Lower Authorities In Making/Confirming The Addition Of Rs.1,00,01,000/- On Account Non-Deposit Of Tax Of Short Term Capital Gain (Stcg) Earned By The Assessee. Pragnaben Umeshbhai Yagnik Vs. Ito Asst. Year : 2015-16 2

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rameshwar P. Meena, Sr.DR

Section 147Section 250

action of the lower authorities in making/confirming the addition of Rs.1,00,01,000/- on account non-deposit of tax of Short Term Capital Gain (STCG) earned by the assessee. Pragnaben Umeshbhai Yagnik vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2015-16 2 3. At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee

Dharman Sivakumar, Dharmapuri vs. ITO, Ward-1, Dharmapuri

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the stay application is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 3628/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3628/Chny/2025 & Sa No.6/Chny/2026 (Arises In Ita No.3628/Chny/2025) िनधा$रण वष$ /Assessment Year: 2016-17 Dharman Sivakumar, The Income Tax Officer, 5/135, Keelmaraiamman Kovil Street, Vs. Ward-1, Dharmapuri Collectorate S.O., Dharmapuri. Dharmapuri – 636 705. Pan: Bykps 9499C

For Respondent: Mr.Raja Kumar, Addl. CIT

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250

belong to the assessee. The AO did not accept the submissions of the assessee and added the entire cash deposit as short term capital gain in the hands of the assessee. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). Since the assessee did not respond to the notices issued

Jadagadder Pakkerappa, Legal Heir Sarojamma, Shikaripura vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 & Tps, Shimoga

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1406/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Sri Varun Bhat, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Balusamy N., D.R

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 15Section 250

aforesaid transaction inspite of giving ample opportunity of being heard, the AO treated the entire amount of Rs.60,00,000/- as short term capital gain and added the same to the income of the assessee. The AO completed the assessment proceedings on a total assessed income of Rs.60

Divya Dinesh, Bengaluru vs. DCIT, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

ITA 2195/BANG/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Feb 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 80G

slab rate included the following income: A. Income from House property Rs. 4,19,043/- B. Business Income Rs. 4,50,000/- C. Short term capital gain taxable at normal rate Rs. 58,95,682/- (Rs. 63,96,143 minus brought forward loss of Rs. 5,00,461) D. Interest ... special rate. 6.2 The assessee explained that during the year, it had earned long term capital gains taxable at 10% and 20%, and short-term capital gains taxable at normal rates. It had also incurred short term capital loss on STT-paid transactions and had brought forward long-term capital

Divya Dinesh, Bengaluru vs. DCIT, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2194/BANG/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Feb 2026AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Sudheendra B.R, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Balusamy N, JCIT

Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 80G

slab rate included the following income: A. Income from House property Rs. 4,19,043/- B. Business Income Rs. 4,50,000/- C. Short term capital gain taxable at normal rate Rs. 58,95,682/- (Rs. 63,96,143 minus brought forward loss of Rs. 5,00,461) D. Interest ... assessee explained that during the year, it had earned long term capital gains taxable at 10% and 20%, and short-term capital gains taxable at normal rates. It had also incurred short term capital loss on STT-paid transactions and had brought forward long-term capital loss. In the return