← 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

Rajesh Balram Singh, Pune vs. ACIT, Pune

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

ITA 2962/PUN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Astha Chandra & Shree Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: Shri Ritvik VatsyayanFor Respondent: Smt. Shraddha Nichal
Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 54F

vide his order dated 21.03.2024 thereby treating the entire amount of sale proceeds/value of immovable property of Rs.70,00,000/- as Short Term Capital Gain (“STCG”) earned during the year and added the same to the total income of the assessee for the relevant AY 2016-17. 3. Aggrieved ... before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal. “1. The learned AO erred in treating the entire Rs 70,00,000/- as short term capital gain in the hands of the appellant although the land was ancestral agricultural property inherited by the entire family and not individually owned

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Manikandan, Chennai

ITA 2986/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2986/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Year: 2017-18 The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Non Corporate Circle-4(1), Chennai. Manikandan, Vs. No.15/16/17, Vision Towers, 2Nd Floor, Yogam Garden, Valasarvakkam, Chennai - 600 087. Pan: Behpm 6583A (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से / Assessee By प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By Mr. R. Sivaraman, Advocate Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 11.02.2026 16.02.2026 Per Padmavathy.S, A.M: आदेश / Order This Appeal By The Revenue Is Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, (In Short "Cit(A)") Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short "The Act") Dated 26.08.2025 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. The Assessee Raised The Following Ground Of Appeal: “1. The Order Of The Ld Cit(A) Is Contrary To Law & Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2 The Ld Cit(A) Erred In Deleting The Addition Made By The Ao Of An Amount Of Rs.2,98,29,315/- Credited In Assessee'S Capital Account By M/S Crcl Llp, In Which Assessee Is A Partner, For Sacrificing / Relinquishing - 2 -:

Section 147Section 2Section 2(14)Section 2(47)Section 250Section 45Section 45(3)

partner viz., M/s Elior India Catering LLP, deeming such transfer as defined in Sec.2(47) and taxing the same u/s 45(3) as Short Term Capital Gains. 3. In the relied upon decision of the jurisdictional ITAT in the case of Gokulakrishna in ITA No.1088/Chny/2025, the Tribunal made a reference ... No.2986/Chny/2025 Manikandan within the definition section 2 (47) of the Act. Accordingly, the A.O treated the entire amount received by the assessee as short term capital gains in the hands of the assessee. Aggrieved, the assessee filed further appeal before the CIT(A). 3. The CIT(A) gave relief

Bang Equity Broking Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT-Circle 4(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7504/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member), SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Anant N. Pai, CAFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui (SR DR)
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 32Section 55

treating the long term capital gains of Rs. 1,16,18,632/- on sale of the Appellant's shares in BSE Ltd as short term capital gains of Rs. 5,98,32,250/- in the assessment order. This treatment of the long term capital gains as short term capital gains ... filed an appeal before us. The learned AR contended that the learned AO assessed the capital gain on sale of BSE shares as short-term capital gain amount of rupees 5,98,32,250/-. The treatment of capital gain was on the ground that the assessee had claimed depreciation

Mukul Rohatgi, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle 61(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2427/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal

For Respondent: Shri Sachit Jolly, Senior Advocate
Section 112ASection 143(3)Section 144BSection 14ASection 24Section 263

various funds held by the assessee and sold during the year, whether to be taxed on long term capital gain basis or short term capital gain basis. 3. At the time of hearing before us, learned Senior Advocate raised the first issue on merits, which is as regards the long ... term capital gain proposed to revise it to short term capital gain to be taxed at normal rate instead of special rate of 10%. The PCIT also proposed for recomputation/revision of assessment of long term capital gain under Section 112A of the Act to the extent

Rasila Lalitkumar Cholera, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Mumbai

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

ITA 7544/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai ()

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69Section 69C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI (JUDICIAL MEMBER) I.T.A. No. 7544/Mum/2025 Assessment Year

Rajendra P Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 24(3)(5), Mumbai

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by assessee

ITA 6545/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Rajendra P. Shah, Ito, Ward-24(3)(5), Mumbai 402, Anand Enclave Chs, Tps 3, 11Th Vs Kautilya Bhawan, Mumbai, Road, Santacruz (East), Maharashtra – 400051. Mumbai – 400055. [Pan No. Aydps7704A] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 131Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)Section 69

seizure action was conducted by Investigation Wing wherein certain incrimination material about providing Rajendra P. Shah bogus long term capital gain or short term capital gain or business income was discovered. On the basis of such information, it was discovered that assessee has also traded in penny stock scrip ... assessee explained that he has not sold share of Mind Vision Capital and that he has not claimed in long term or short term capital gain during the year. In para 5 of assessment order, the AO recorded that assessee purchased 294225 share of Mind Vision Capital

M/S Stance Consumer Electronics Private Limited, Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CC-32, Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee for AY 2017-18 in ITA No

ITA 2792/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalita Nos.2791 & 2792/Del/2025 (Assessment Yearss 2016-17 & 2017-18)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

assessee was assessed at Rs.1,58,10,662/-. The AO further made protective addition of Rs. 1,45,00,000/- as short term capital gains with the observation that it will become substantive addition in case addition u/s 68 is deleted by the appellate authorities. 14. Against the said order ... dated 29.03.2025, has partly allowed the appeal of the assessee, wherein both the additions u/s 68 were confirmed and protective addition made as short term capital gains was deleted. Stance Consumer Electronics Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT 15. Aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT(A), assessee preferred the present appeal

M/S Stance Consumer Electronics Private Limited, New Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CC-32, Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee for AY 2017-18 in ITA No

ITA 2791/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalita Nos.2791 & 2792/Del/2025 (Assessment Yearss 2016-17 & 2017-18)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

assessee was assessed at Rs.1,58,10,662/-. The AO further made protective addition of Rs. 1,45,00,000/- as short term capital gains with the observation that it will become substantive addition in case addition u/s 68 is deleted by the appellate authorities. 14. Against the said order ... dated 29.03.2025, has partly allowed the appeal of the assessee, wherein both the additions u/s 68 were confirmed and protective addition made as short term capital gains was deleted. Stance Consumer Electronics Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT 15. Aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT(A), assessee preferred the present appeal

Ashok Kumar Chauhan, Shimla vs. DCIT Circle Shimla, Shimla

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 412/CHANDI/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh12 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: the learned CIT(A). It is noted that two appeals were filed—one in physical form and another electronically. The learned CIT(A) dismissed the first appeal on the ground of non-prosecution and subsequently dismissed the electronically filed appeal treating the same as infructuous, without adjudicating the issues on merits.5. Against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal.

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Mohan, Sr. Advocate with Shri Parveen Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 24Section 80C

case the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) NFAC is not justified in upholding the addition of Rs.3,027/- made on account of short term capital gain. 4. That in the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) NFAC is not justified in upholding ... contractor, depreciation, interest and royalty. Certain other additions were also made, including interest income on FDRs, disallowance u/s 24(b) and short-term capital gains. 4. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(A). It is noted that two appeals were filed

Hemant Dahyalal Bhatt, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 6(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee for assessment years 2012–13 to 2016–17 are allowed, and appeals for assessment years 2017–18 and 2018–19 are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7913/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 10(14)Section 10(14)(ii)Section 144Section 153ASection 24

Income Tax Act, 1961. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the addition of INR 41,693 comprising of short-term capital gains 2015-16 The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the addition of INR 15,000 on account of medical allowance ... Income Tax Act, 1961. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the addition of INR 54,809 comprising of short-term capital gains under the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2016-17 The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the addition

Hemant Dahyalal Bhatt, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 6(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee for assessment years 2012–13 to 2016–17 are allowed, and appeals for assessment years 2017–18 and 2018–19 are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7912/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 10(14)Section 10(14)(ii)Section 144Section 153ASection 24

Income Tax Act, 1961. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the addition of INR 41,693 comprising of short-term capital gains 2015-16 The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the addition of INR 15,000 on account of medical allowance ... Income Tax Act, 1961. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the addition of INR 54,809 comprising of short-term capital gains under the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2016-17 The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the addition

Hemant Dahyalal Bhatt, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 6(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee for assessment years 2012–13 to 2016–17 are allowed, and appeals for assessment years 2017–18 and 2018–19 are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7911/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 10(14)Section 10(14)(ii)Section 144Section 153ASection 24

Income Tax Act, 1961. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the addition of INR 41,693 comprising of short-term capital gains 2015-16 The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the addition of INR 15,000 on account of medical allowance ... Income Tax Act, 1961. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the addition of INR 54,809 comprising of short-term capital gains under the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2016-17 The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the addition

Hemant Dahyalal Bhatt, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 6(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee for assessment years 2012–13 to 2016–17 are allowed, and appeals for assessment years 2017–18 and 2018–19 are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7910/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 10(14)Section 10(14)(ii)Section 144Section 153ASection 24

Income Tax Act, 1961. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the addition of INR 41,693 comprising of short-term capital gains 2015-16 The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the addition of INR 15,000 on account of medical allowance ... Income Tax Act, 1961. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the addition of INR 54,809 comprising of short-term capital gains under the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2016-17 The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the addition

Hemant Dahyalal Bhatt, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 6(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee for assessment years 2012–13 to 2016–17 are allowed, and appeals for assessment years 2017–18 and 2018–19 are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7909/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 10(14)Section 10(14)(ii)Section 144Section 153ASection 24

Income Tax Act, 1961. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the addition of INR 41,693 comprising of short-term capital gains 2015-16 The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the addition of INR 15,000 on account of medical allowance ... Income Tax Act, 1961. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the addition of INR 54,809 comprising of short-term capital gains under the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2016-17 The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the addition

Hemant Dahyalal Bhatt, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 6(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee for assessment years 2012–13 to 2016–17 are allowed, and appeals for assessment years 2017–18 and 2018–19 are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7908/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 10(14)Section 10(14)(ii)Section 144Section 153ASection 24

Income Tax Act, 1961. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the addition of INR 41,693 comprising of short-term capital gains 2015-16 The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the addition of INR 15,000 on account of medical allowance ... Income Tax Act, 1961. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the addition of INR 54,809 comprising of short-term capital gains under the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2016-17 The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the addition

Hemant Dahyalal Bhatt, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 6(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee for assessment years 2012–13 to 2016–17 are allowed, and appeals for assessment years 2017–18 and 2018–19 are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7907/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 10(14)Section 10(14)(ii)Section 144Section 153ASection 24

Income Tax Act, 1961. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the addition of INR 41,693 comprising of short-term capital gains 2015-16 The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the addition of INR 15,000 on account of medical allowance ... Income Tax Act, 1961. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the addition of INR 54,809 comprising of short-term capital gains under the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2016-17 The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the addition

Rohit Manchand, Delhi vs. ITO Ward 5(3)(2), Gautam Budh Nagar

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 5124/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

For Appellant: Sh. Raj Kumar, CA &For Respondent: Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr.DR
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 50cSection 54

total sale consideration is Rs.1.83 Cr. and the share of the assessee is 50% i.e. Rs.91.50 Lacs. -The A.O. calculated short term capital gain by 10  By adopting declared sale consideration at Rs.1.83 Cr.  Reducing 30% adhoc there from ie. Rs.54.90 Lacs as assumed cost of acquisition,  Differential Rs.1

Udhri Uvaraj, Salem vs. ITO, Ward-1(4), Tiruppur

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

ITA 3485/CHNY/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Feb 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr. Kumar Chandan, JCITFor Respondent: 21.01.2026
Section 143(3)Section 147

documents submitted by the assessee, the AO made additions to the tune of Rs.4,81,498/- as long term capital gain and short term capital gain by arriving at a total income of Rs.5,67,556/- for the A.Y.2010-11 and concluded the assessment proceedings by passing an order u/s.143

Gaurav Vinimay Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 8(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 2306/KOL/2025[205-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Feb 2026

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 50DSection 56(2)Section 56(2)(viia)

invoking the provisions of section 56(2)(viia) of the Act and further, added a sum of ₹2,03,68,000/- as Short term Capital Gains by invoking the provisions of section 50D of the Act and assessed the total income of the assessee

Devanshi Sharma, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 34(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed as indicated above

ITA 7007/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokardevanshi Sharma Ito, Ward 34(1)(1) 216, 2Nd Floor, Kautaliya Bhawan, Sagar Jyoti, Plot No. 18, Vs. 6Th Road, Jvpd Scheme, G-Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Vile Parle (W), Mumbai-400 056 Bandra (E), Mumbai-400 051 Pan/Gir No. Cmvpk 6007 Q (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Shashank Mehta Respondent By : Shri Annavaram Kosuri Date Of Hearing : 05.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.02.2026 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against Order Dated 27.10.2025, Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Nfac’ For Short), Delhi For The Assessment Year (A.Y. For Short) 2017-18. 2. In Ground No. 1, The Assessee Has Raised A Pertinent Legal Issue, Challenging The Validity Of The Order Passed U/S. 148A(D) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ For Short) As Also The Notice Issued U/S. 148 Of The Act. Since, The Aforesaid Issue Raised By The Assessee Is A Purely Legal & Jurisdictional Issue Going To The Root Of The Matter & Affecting The Validity Of The Proceedings Initiated U/S. 147 Of The Act, We Are Inclined To Address The Issue At The Very Outset.

For Appellant: Shri Shashank MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Annavaram Kosuri
Section 10(38)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151

report of the Investigation Wing, M/s. Kushal Limited is used to facilitate introduction of unaccounted income of beneficiaries in the form of exempt Short Term Capital Gain (‘STCG’ for short) or Short Term Capital Loss (‘STCL’ for short). Based on such information, the A.O. reopened the assessment