“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

Bhikhalal Prahaladrai Agarwal HUF, Gandhidham vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Gandhidham Circle, Gandhidham

ITA 780/RJT/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot21 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.779&780/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2016-17) Bhikhalal Prahaladrai Agarwal- Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Huf, Gandhidham Circle C/O. Sarda & Sarda, Sakar, 1St It Office, Plot No. 32, Sector No. 3, Near Floor, Dr. Radha-Krishnan Road, Iffco Colony, Gandhidham Opp. Rajkumar College Rajkot Gandhidham - 370201 Rajkot - 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabha4638R (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vimal Desai, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 05/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 21/08/2025

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Desai, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 10(38)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

claimed any exemption u/s 10(38) of the Act, in respect of the said scrip. In fact, the assessee earned a short- term capital gain and intra-day gain from the sale of shares of Vax Housing Finance Corporation Ltd, which was taxable and the assessee also paid ... under section 147/148 of the Act, needs to be quashed. 16. We further find that the assessee had actually carried out transactions of short term capital gain (STCG) and intra-day in the scrip of Vax Housing ITA Nos.779&780/RJT/2024/AYs.2011-12&2016-17 Bhikhalal Prahladrai Agarwal-HUF Finance Corporation

Bhikhalal Prahladrai Agarwal HUF, Gandhidham vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Gandhidham Circle, Gandhidham

ITA 779/RJT/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot21 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Desai, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 10(38)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

Parakkadath Simon Varghese, Thrissur vs. Income Tax Office, International Taxation, Kochi Circle

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes and the stay application stands dismissed

ITA 533/COCH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm & Sa No. 72/Coch/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Parakkadath Simon Varghese .......... Appellant Parakkadath House, Koratty South, Thrissur [Pan: Afgpv9060G] Vs. Dcit (International Taxation), Kochi .......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri Gibi C. George, Advocate Revenue By: Ms. Neethu S., Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 18.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 20.08.2025

For Appellant: Shri Gibi C. George, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neethu S., Sr. DR

Section 12A(1)(ac)Section 143(3)Section 282(1)

against the sale consideration shown at Rs. 1,08,48,000/-. The AO also made addition of short term capital gains of Rs. 27,48,000/- on sale of land as the appellant had failed to furnish information called for in support of the return of income submitted

Narayanan, Chromepet vs. Income Tax Officer, Chennai

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

ITA 695/CHNY/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Aug 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.695/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 Narayanan, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, F-1, 37/60, Guru Balaji Apts, International Taxation Ward 2(1), First Main Road, New Colony, Chennai. Chromepet, Chennai 600 044. [Pan:Ackpn6481A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : None ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 24.07.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 20.08.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 06.01.2025 Passed By The Income Tax Officer, International Taxation Ward 2(1), Chennai Under Section 147 R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. When The Appeal Was Taken Up For Hearing On 24.07.2025, We Find No Representation On Behalf Of The Assessee. However, We Find Paper

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144C(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69

cost of acquisition, holding period etc., the Assessing Officer treated the entire sale consideration of immovable property of ₹.65,00,000/- as short-term capital gains in the hands of the assessee for the year under consideration. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer proposed draft assessment order dated 18.03.2024 under section 144C ... Assessing Officer determined long term capital gain to an extent of ₹.5,69,344/- as against the addition on account of short term capital gain amounting to ₹.65,000/- as proposed in the draft assessment order. We find the Assessing Officer has given benefit of indexed cost of acquisition

Rita Manchani, Jabalpur vs. ITO Ward 2(1), Jabalpur

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

ITA 60/JAB/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur19 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 144BSection 147Section 250(6)

assessee at Rs.18,41,770/- by making I.T.A. No.60/JAB/2024 Assessment Year:2013-14 2 addition of Rs.5,53,428/- on account of Short Term Capital Gain. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal in the office of learned CIT(A). Vide impugned order dated 19/03/2022, the assessee’s appeal was dismissed

Mahendrakumar Bhanjibhai Chhaniyara, Rajkot vs. The ITO Ward 1 (2) (1) Rajkot, Rajkot

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

ITA 280/RJT/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot19 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No. 280/Rjt/2025 (निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Year: (2016-17) Mahendrakumar Bhanjibhai Income Tax Officer, Chaniyara, Gaushala Plot, Kolki बनाम Ward-1(2)(1), Rajkot, Aaykar Rajkot, Kolki So, Bhawan, Rajkot-360001 /Vs. Rajkot-360470 स्थायी लेखा सं./जी आइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Astpc9150G (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) निर्धारितीकीओरसे/Appellant By : Shri Jaimin Shah, Ld. A.R. राजस्वकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. D.R. सुनवाईकीतारीख / Date Of Hearing : 18/08/2025 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 19/08/2025 आदेश / Order Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Order (Ay) 2016-17, Is Directed Against The Order Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act") Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi/Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals) (In Short "Ld.Cit(A)",Dated 12.03.2025, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 147 R.W.S 144 Of The Act, Dated 28.02.2024. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

For Appellant: Shri Jaimin Shah, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. D.R

Section 139Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 210Section 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 271F

Center is required to be re- consideration. 03. That the addition sustained by the Ld. NFAC AO of Rs. 66,78,350/- as short term capital gain for A.Y 2016-17 is against the facts on record, therefore the heavy addition made by Ld. A.O. is require to be deleted ... against the principal of natural justice and therefore the heavy addition made of Rs. 66,78,350/- as short term capital gain is required to be deleted. 06. That the appellant has purchased the land under question on 06/08/2010 and sold on 19/06/2015 which is Long term capital gain, however

Smt Sushama Rajesh Rao, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-5(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 49/BANG/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year: 2012-13 Sushama Rajesh Rao, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner No.159, Priyadarshani, R. T. Nagar, Of Income Tax, Mla Layout, Circle – 6(2)(1), Bangalore – 560 032. Bangalore. Pan : Acypr 5251 J Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri. V. Chandrashekar, Advocate Respondent By : Shri. Muthu Shankar, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bangalore. Date Of Hearing : 23.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.08.2025

For Appellant: Shri. V. Chandrashekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Muthu Shankar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore

Section 234BSection 250Section 49Section 50(2)Section 50C

alleged long term capital gains arising on sale of the agricultural land as against the returned short term capital gains of Rs. Nil on the facts and circumstances of the case. 8. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified in holding that the learned Assessing Officer ... Rs.8,36,25,000/- as alleged long term capital gain arising on sale of the agricultural land as against the short term capital gain of Rs. Nil. He specifically stated that the agricultural land acquired by the assessee is received as a gift from her husband , which is transferred

Mazhar Ilahi Shamsi, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward 1(1), Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed as per the terms indicated above

ITA 680/JPR/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Aug 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Khandelwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Chudhary

Section 148Section 250

No.2 raised on merits of the case against the addition made under the head „long term capital gain‟ at Rs.3,96,516/- and „short term capital gain‟ at Rs. 84,562/-. 5. I have heard rival contentions and perused the record placed before me. I observe that assessee has declared ... observed that two transactions of sale of immovable property fall under the long term capital gain category and one transaction falls under the short term capital gain. This bifurcation by the Ld.AO has not been disputed by the assessee. The only point of dispute is the disallowance made

Amit Girdharbhai Patel, Vadodara vs. The ACIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara

ITA 811/AHD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(47)Section 50C

perused the materials available on record including the Paper Book filed by the assessee. For the Asst. Year 2011-12, the assessee declared short term capital gain on sale of the land at Chapad, Baroda showing short term capital gain of Rs.5,32,993/- by calculating the purchase cost ... Based on the above transactions, the assessee filed his Return of Income for the Asst. Year 2011-12 on 23-11-2011 declaring short term capital gain of Rs.5,32,993/-. It is thereafter, based on the appellate order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) in the case of Shri

Chetan Arvind Alai, Nashik vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Nashik

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

ITA 233/PUN/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Ms.Astha Chandra

For Respondent: Appellant by Shri Prathik Sandbhor

Section 147Section 250

dealt with ground No.2 and 3 raised relating to addition for commission received at 2,68,000/- and addition for short term capital gain at Rs.20,83,334/-. It is therefore prayed that direction may be given to the ld.CIT(A) to adjudicate the above two grounds and decide ... raised by the assessee in Form No.3 relating to addition made for commission received at Rs.2,68,000/- and addition for short term capital gain at Rs.20,83,334/- are remitted to the file of ld.CIT(A) for necessary adjudication. Assessee is at liberty to adduce the requisite evidence/submissions

Procter and Gamble Health Private Limited, Mumbai vs. The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -8, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2326/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti Vissanji & Shri Ajay BhandariFor Respondent: Shri R A Dhyani, CIT D/R

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263Section 40Section 50CSection 56(2)(x)Section 68

Expenses allowed as per 43B-Payment of ESIC 11 Expenses allowed as per 43B-reversal BUSINESS INCOME Capital Gain on Sale of Flat Short term capital gains on depreciable asset Sale Proceed of Ashutosh Flat Less: Transfer Fees Paid to Society Less: Brokerage Paid Net Consideration Less: Opening ... block of asset of Flat Short term capital gains Gross Total Income Deduction under Chapter VI-A Less Deduction under section 80JJAA TOTAL TAXABLE INCOME

Sabeena Silk Mills, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 31(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1508/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Narndra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Anikesh Banerjeesabeena Silk Mills Vs Income-Tax Officer 31(1)(1), Apurva Industrial Estate, Mumbai, Majwana Road, Marol Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, Bandra, Mumbai-400 059 Mumbai-400 051 Pan: Aabfs3210R Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri H.N. MotiwalaFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui (SR.DR.)

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 50

order of the Assessing Officer in respect of not setting off the brought forward losses of Rs. 1,77,49,496/- against the short term capital gains under section 50 of the Act. The appellant craves a leave to add, to delete or to modify any of the main grounds ... wherein it was held, in A.Y. 2011-12, that brought forward business loss and long-term capital loss could be set off against short-term capital gains computed under section 50 on the sale of depreciable assets. Reliance was also placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High

Pooran Singh, Dholpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Bharatpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 196/JPR/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Aug 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention That The Assessee Has Assailed The Appeal In Ita No.

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Pandya, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271F

time. In view of this fact, the AO treated the amount of Rs.5,38,800/- as income from undisclosed sources under the head Short Term Capital Gain and levied penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act amounting to Rs.58,525/- for the year under consideration. 4.2. During the appellate proceedings

Pooran Singh, Dholpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Bharatpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 195/JPR/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Aug 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention That The Assessee Has Assailed The Appeal In Ita No.

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Pandya, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271F

Pooran Singh, Dholpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 4, Bharatpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 194/JPR/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Aug 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention That The Assessee Has Assailed The Appeal In Ita No.

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Pandya, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271F

Dipa Prakashkumar Velani, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-1(2), Bhavnagar

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

ITA 1039/AHD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Manish J Shah & Shri Rushin Patel ARSFor Respondent: Shri Prateek Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 156Section 69

erred in law and on facts of the case, in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer of taxing short term capital gain of Rs.2,08,780/- without appreciating the facts and law of the case properly. 5. The appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter the grounds ... Rajendrasinh Chudasama, the buyer of the said plot. The assessee submitted a cost of improvement of ₹2,08,780/- was incurred and declared short term capital gains of ₹58,220/- in her return. However, the Assessing Officer rejected her explanation and found her claims to be unsubstantiated. The Assessing Officer

Sangita Pramod Harlalka, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 23(3)(6), Mumbai

ITA 4167/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

Section 250Section 68Section 69C

case was selected for scrutiny and the statutory notices were duly served on the assessee. The AO noticed that the assessee has earned Short Term Capital Gains (STCG) from transfer of alleged penny stock and accordingly called on the assessee to file the necessary details. The assessee filed various details

Hiral Tapankumar Chudgar, Vadodara, Gujarat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(3)(1), Vadodara, Gujarat

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 44/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

Section 10(38)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 69Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “B” BENCH Before: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar, Judicial Member And Shri Makarand Vasant

Hiral Tapankumar Chudgar, Vadodara, Gujarat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(3)(1), Vadodara, Gujarat

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 43/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar, Judicial Member And\nShri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar, Accountant Member\nITA Nos 43 & 44/Ahd/2025\nAssessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19\nHiral Tapankumar\nChudgar\n201/A, Premdarshan,\nBehind Jay Ambe School,\nSamasavli Raod, Vemali,\nVadodara-390008,\nGujarat\nPAN: ANCPC4000H\n(Appellant)\nIncome Tax Officer\nWard-1(3)(1),\nVs Vadodara\n(Respondent)\nAssessee Represented:\nShri Deepak Shah, A.R.\nRevenue Represented:\nShri Abhijit, Sr.D.R.\nDate of hearing\n: 18-06-

Section 10(38)Section 115BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 69Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “B” BENCH Before: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar, Judicial Member And Shri Makarand Vasant

Nathoo Lalji Charity Trust, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Exem. Ward 2(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3925/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Joshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satyaprakash R.Singh, CIT DR

Section 11Section 115BSection 143(3)

erred in confirming the action of the Learned Assessing Officer in making an addition of Rs.4,56,26,000/- as alleged short term capital gain earned on sale of immovable property by adopting the stamp duty value as sales consideration u/s. 50C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without considering ... same u/s 115BBC of the Act. c. Disallowance of Long-Term Capital loss of Rs. 27,21,607/-. d. Addition on account of Short-Term Capital Gain of Rs. 4,56,26,000/-. 5. Aggrieved, assessee went in appeal before Ld. CIT(A). First appellate order is also ex-parte