“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

Pratima Panwar, Jaipur vs. I.T.O, Ward 3(3), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 218/JPR/2025[A.Y 2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Apr 2025

Bench: Him.

For Appellant: Sh. G. M. Mehta, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 69A

which was accepted by ld. AO when sold after six months for Rs.72,11,000/- on 23.06.2007. The short term capital gain tax was assessed u/s. 143(3)/50C of Act. Against dishonored single cheque on sale of land for Rs.72,11,000/-, assessee received major amount in cash ... purchased immovable property of Rs.63,24,200/-. Department had found the purchase of said property as out of explained sources in taxing the short term capital gains on its sale for Rs.72,11,000/- after 6 months in scrutiny assessment (P.B. 56 to 64). Consideration of sold property was received

Chetna Kantilal Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Cirlce-3(1)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 172/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Aseem Thakkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Santosh Kumar, Sr DR

Section 115BSection 147Section 148Section 250

sold the same within 9 months of getting possession. He thereby erred in making addition of consideration amount under the head short term capital gains instead of long term capital gains. He further erred in taxing the same applying the provisions of Sec. 115BBE

ACIT Circle - 22(1), Mumbai vs. Nilesh Haresh Parwani, Mumbai

In the result, the Cross Objection by the assessee is allowed, while the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 266/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Paresh Deshpande, Sr. DR

Section 133ASection 250

fact of the case and modus operandi utilized by entry operators for providing accommodation entries under the garb of Long Term Capital Gain/ Short Term Capital Gain Loss by manipulating/rigging up the share price." 3. While in its Cross Objection, the assessee has raised the following grounds: – “1. The Learned

Hemant Dalakote, Haldwani vs. ACIT Circle 2(1)(1), Haldwani

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 42/DDN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun23 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Amar Pal Singh, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 50CSection 50C(2)

accordingly proceeded ex-parte. 3. It emerges during the course of hearing that both the learned lower authorities have added the alleged undisclosed short term capital gains of Rs.24,15,000/- representing the difference between actual sale consideration and the stamp price of the corresponding four capital assets/sale deed

Gujarat Vepari Mahamandal Sahkari Audyogik Vasahat Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-3(3)(5), Ahmedabad

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 288/AHD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Apr 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri M. S. Chhajed, A.RFor Respondent: Shri S. K. Agal, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 80Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

dealing ground of appellant in regards to addition made by Ld. A.O. of entire sale consideration of long term asset as short term capital gain of Rs. 16,28,950/-. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not dealing of ground of appellant

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

The appeals of the assessee are allowed in above terms

ITA 1878/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Annapurna Guptaita Nos. 1877 & 1878/Ahd/2024 Assessment Year 2016-17 & 2017-18

For Appellant: Ms. Urvashi Sodhan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Nitin Kulkarni, Sr. D.R

Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 271Section 68

sale of shares undertaken by the assessee to be bogus. The one resulting in loss, which was claimed as a set off against short term capital gain earned by the assessee, was disallowed, while the transaction resulting in short term capital gain was treated as unexplained cash credit and addition ... NFAC) erred in law and on facts confirming addition made by AO merely on the basis of general information that short- term capital gain of Rs. 38,99, 624/- from transactions in the script of Stampede Capital Ltd. was an accommodation entry without making any independent inquiry

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

The appeals of the assessee are allowed in above terms

ITA 1877/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Annapurna Guptaita Nos. 1877 & 1878/Ahd/2024 Assessment Year 2016-17 & 2017-18

For Appellant: Ms. Urvashi Sodhan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Nitin Kulkarni, Sr. D.R

Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 271Section 68

Harinath Reddy Devireddy, Hyderbad vs. DCIT., Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

ITA 321/HYD/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 Apr 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Us:

Section 115BSection 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 234A

circumstances of the case. 8. The learned Authorities below are not justified in making an addition of Rs. 41,30,000/-, undisclosed short term capital gain, under section 115BBE of the Act, under the facts and circumstances of the case. 9. The learned Authorities below are not justified in making ... improvement pertaining to the subject property, held the entire amount of sale consideration of the subject properties aggregating to Rs.41.30 lacs (supra) as Short-Term Capital Gain (STCG) and made an addition of the same to the returned income of the assessee. 5. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter

Harinath Reddy Devireddy, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle 1(1), Hyderabad

ITA 1245/HYD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Us:

Section 115BSection 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 234A

Harinath Reddy Devireddy, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle 1(1), Hyderabad

ITA 1244/HYD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Us:

Section 115BSection 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 234A

Rukshmani Dedhia, Legal Heir of Jayantilal Tokershi Dedhia, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 2(2), Kalyan

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1103/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), MS PADMAVATHY S (Accountant Member)

Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

existence in this year only and since assessee had sold the said flat in this year, the income was to be taxed as short term capital gain, because the period was less than 36 months. It has been brought on record that this Tribunal in the case of another ... penalty for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income instead of long term capital gain offered by the assessee should be taxed as short term capital gain. This penalty has also been confirmed by the ld. CIT (A). 4. After hearing both the parties and on perusal of the records

Miker Financial Consultants Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Ward-10(2)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 849/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL (Judicial Member)

Section 144Section 151Section 250Section 68Section 69C

facts of the case and that the Appellant has NOT earned any exempt Long Term Capital Gains (LTCG) nor earned any Short Term Capital Gains (STCG) and thus, no question of any income escaping assessment by way of bogus exempt LTCG. 3.The NFAC (CIT(A)) failed to appreciate that ... penny stock, listed on BSE has been used to facilitate introduction of unaccounted income of members/beneficiaries in form of exempt capital gains or short term capital gains and notice u/s. 148 was issued on 31.03.2021 which was duly served on the assessee. There was however no compliance on the part

Teju Parvat, Sanver vs. ITO-1(1), Indore

Appeal is disposed off on merits

ITA 635/IND/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Paresh M Joshi

Section 139(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 2(14)Section 250Section 253Section 271(1)(c)Section 271F

Therefore, in view of the facts mentioned above, considering total sales consideration amount of Rs. 1,50,10,000/- as undisclosed Short Term Capital Gain an amount of Rs.1,50,10,000/- is being determined as total income of the assessee. I am also satisfied that the assessee has concealed ... accepting the contention of the assessee that addition of Rs.1,50,10,000 to the total income of the assessee as income from Short term capital gain on account of sale of agricultural lands was without appreciation of the facts of the case as the sale deeds submitted by assessee

Sanjivani Shikshan Sansthan, Jaipur vs. ITO WD 6(3), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1207/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri Rahoan Sogani, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR &

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250

Further, the year of acquisition of the said immovable property is not available on record. Therefore, this income is calculated under Short Term Capital Gain amounting to Rs.6,33,60,000/- and added to the income of the assessee for the assessment year under consideration. Since, the assessee has concealed ... responsive at the time of assessment proceedings, the assessment order has been passed ex-parte after making after making addition on account of Short-Term Capital Gain amounting to Rs 6,33,60,000/- taking cost of acquisition at Rs. Nil c) Further, during the appellate proceedings, the appellant

Pankaj Agarwal, Kanpur vs. Jt.CIT Circle-1(1)(1), Kanpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 267/LKW/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow22 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2012-13 Pankaj Agarwal, 7/151, Ratan Vs. The Jt. Commissioner Of Majestic, Opp. Sony World, Income Tax, Circle 1(1)(1), Swaroop Nagar, Kanpur-208002 Kanpur-208001 Pan:Abjfs4912R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Rakesh Garg, Adv Revenue By: Sh. Sanjeev Krishna Sharma Sr Dr & Sh Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.04.2025 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 Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 21.08.2023. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. Because The Cit (A) Has The Erred On Facts & In Law In Upholding The Disallowance Of Rs.2,47,02,865/- On Account Of Loss In Trading In Derivatives Business Treating The Same As Capital Loss, As Against Assessee'S Claim Of Business Loss, To Be Set Off Against Other Business Income, Which Order Is Contrary To Facts, Bad In Law, The Disallowance Made By The Ao & Upheld Be Deleted. 2. Because On A Proper Consideration Of The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & Also On The Interpretation Of The Provisions Of Sec 43(5), It Would Be Found The Loss Of Rs.2,47,02,865/- On Account Of Trading In Derivative Is Neither A Speculative Loss Nor A Capital Loss, The Same Should Ought To Be Set Off Against Other Business Income, The Cit (A) Has Erred, In Treating The Same As Short Term Capital Loss.

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjeev Krishna Sharma Sr DR & Sh

Section 14ASection 250Section 43(5)Section 72

section 2(42A) of the I.T. Act, 1961 and Explanation 2 of the same section defined, ‘securities’ for the purposes of short term capital gain. She further observed that the meaning of securities was taken as per Clause (h) of section 2 of the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956 which ... included derivatives. Relying upon such definition, the ld. AO concluded that short term capital gain can arise in derivative transactions when the same are held as investments by the assessee. She held that the amendment that was brought into section 2(14) in the definition of capital asset, was with

Vasant Shivram Madhavi, Panvel vs. ITO Ward - 5, Panvel

ITA 1716/PUN/2024[AY 2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Apr 2025

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: S/Shri Bhupendra Shah and Babulal JainFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari - CIT

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151

asking the assessee to explain as to why the net consideration at Rs.9,25,45,000/- should not be brought to tax as short term capital gain. The assessee thereafter filed his response to the said notice. 4. However, the Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the arguments advanced ... assessee and made addition of Rs.9,25,45,000/- as short term capital gain by observing as under: “Point-wise rebuttal of reply of the assessee including analysis of any case law relied upon. 1 At the outset, the assessee has responded and uploaded his response only to the show

Mr. Viren Rohitkumar Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 32(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 90/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Girish Agrawalmr. Viren Rohitkumar Shah, 02/009 Om Heera Pana Mall, Oshiwara, Andheri (W), Mumbai - 400102 ............... Appellant Pan : Aaqps2809B V/S

For Appellant: Shri Hitesh JainFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, Sr.DR

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 234BSection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. A.O. has erred in making addition of Rs. 90,30,020/- under the head short term capital gain, in respect cost of acquisition of property without considering the facts and circumstances of the case. 8. On the facts and circumstances

ITO-19(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Raichand Parasmal Chokshi, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1486/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18 Income Tax Officer 19(3)(1) Raichand Parasmal Chokshi 405, Piramal Chambers, 305, Ashirwad Building, Lalabaug 10Th Khetwadi Lane, Vs. Mumbai 400012 Mumbai 400004. (Pan: Aaapc6486C) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2017-18 Income Tax Officer 19(3)(1) Raichand Parasmal Chokshi 405, Piramal Chambers, Huf Lalabaug 305, Ashirwad Building, Mumbai 400012 Vs. 10Th Khetwadi Lane, Mumbai 400004. (Pan: Aaahr1005A) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Umang Shah, Ca Revenue : Shri R.R. Makwana, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing : 23.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.04.2025 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: These Two Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are In The Case Of An Individual & Huf Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Delhi, Vide Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023- Ay 2017-18 24/1060184522(1) Dated 29.01.2024 For Individual & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1064573907(1), Dated 02.05.2024 For The Huf, Passed Against The Assessment Orders By Income Tax Officer 19(3)(1), Mumbai U/S. 144 R.W.S 147 Of The Income-Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 29.05.2023 & 21.04.2023, Respectively For Individual & Huf For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Appeal In Ita No. 1486/Mum/2024 Is By The Individual & That In Ita No. 3374/Mum/2024 Is By The Huf With The Present Individual As Its Karta. Common Issue Is Involved In Both The Appeals By The Revenue, Raising Identical Grounds Except For Variation In The Quantum Of Addition Made By The Ld. Assessing Officer. Accordingly, Grounds Taken By The Revenue In The Case Of Individual In Ita No. 1486/Mum/2024 Are Reproduced As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Umang Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Addl. CIT

Section 10Section 10(38)Section 144Section 68

Monotype India Ltd, which was flagged as a penny stock and allegedly used for accommodation entry purposes in the grab of Long Term Short Term Capital Gain or Loss ?" 3. Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) has erred

Punkaaj Kaalay, Pune vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax Act, CPC

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

ITA 1890/PUN/2024[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Apr 2025AY 2021-2022

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

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai

Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 272ASection 272A(1)Section 54

completed the assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act vide his order dated 09.12.2022 thereby making the following additions : (i) Short Term Capital Gain (STCG) of Rs.1,59,77,75/- and (ii) unexplained investment of Rs.3,05,00,000/-. Simultaneously, he initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 270A ... fact levied penalty under section 272A(1) of the Income Tax Act 1961 of Rs.31,07,110/- on underreporting of short term capital gain income of Rs 1,59,77,750/-. 2. The appellant craves to leave to add or alter, amend, modify the grounds of appeal.” 3 ITA No.1890/PUN/2024

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bandra East vs. Ravindra Shankar Sawant, Dahisar West

ITA 5192/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Mr. Rajiv Khandelwal, CA (Virtually)For Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana, Addl. CIT

Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69C

respect of sale of shares in stock market and derived an artificial short term capital loss and the same was set off with short term capital gains. Ld. AO thus, noted that assessee sold shares of the company Neha International Ltd and VAS Infrastructure Ltd. for Rs.22 ... Rs.45,11,826/-, respectively on which assessee accounted for short term capital loss for setting it off with short term capital gain. 3. 1. From the facts, it is seen that assessee bought 50,329 shares of Neha International Ltd during August, 2011 for average price