← 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

Sri.K.N.Sreekumar, Kottayam vs. The ACIT, Kottayam

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 108/COCH/2021[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin22 Jan 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: --- None ---For Respondent: Smt.Leenalal, Sr.AR

assessee failed to file any evidence to substantiate its claim of agricultural income, and (ii) set off of the business loss with short term capital gain, on this issue the CIT(A) has not dealt in detail. Therefore, we are of the firm opinion that the matters require fresh adjudication

Paras Kuhad, Jaipur vs. ACIT - 7, Jaipur

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

ITA 1004/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Tarun Mittal, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Anup Singh, Addl. CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 44A

limited scrutiny were increased from Two to Three (APB 50-53), which are as under: i. Increase in TDS in revised return ii. Short Term Capital Gain u/s 111A iii. Deduction from Total Income u/c VIA Various details and information as sought by ld.AO were furnished and after perusing ... same, ld.AO was satisfied w.r.t. two aspects, i.e. short term capital gains and deduction u/c VIA, however ld.AO made addition to the tune of Rs. 12 Paras Kuhad vs. ACIT 1,37,53,473/- by alleging that there was difference between professional fee as reported in Form-26AS

Mrs. Neeta Gupta, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 6416/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jan 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Dhiraj Kumar Jain, Sr. DR
Section 1Section 148Section 251(1)

that the assessee’s cost of acquisition deserve to be partly allowed along with re-computation of her long term capital gains to short term capital gains in very terms. Mr. Jain next submits that the assessee’s latter twin penalty appeal i.e. ITA No. 5461/Del/2014 and ITA No. 6416/Del/2016 ... cost of acquisition ITA Nos. 2186 & 6416/Del/2016 Neeta Gupta and the one resulting in enhancement after treatment of long term capital gains to short term capital gains (supra). It is in this factual backdrop that the assessee has filed her all the instant four appeals. 5. We advert

Mrs. Neeta Gupta, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 2186/DEL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jan 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Dhiraj Kumar Jain, Sr. DR
Section 1Section 148Section 251(1)

that the assessee’s cost of acquisition deserve to be partly allowed along with re-computation of her long term capital gains to short term capital gains in very terms. Mr. Jain next submits that the assessee’s latter twin penalty appeal i.e. ITA No. 5461/Del/2014 and ITA No. 6416/Del/2016 ... cost of acquisition ITA Nos. 2186 & 6416/Del/2016 Neeta Gupta and the one resulting in enhancement after treatment of long term capital gains to short term capital gains (supra). It is in this factual backdrop that the assessee has filed her all the instant four appeals. 5. We advert

Mrs. Neeta Gupta, New Delhi vs. CIT (Appeals)-Xxvi, New Delhi

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 5461/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jan 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Dhiraj Kumar Jain, Sr. DR
Section 1Section 148Section 251(1)

that the assessee’s cost of acquisition deserve to be partly allowed along with re-computation of her long term capital gains to short term capital gains in very terms. Mr. Jain next submits that the assessee’s latter twin penalty appeal i.e. ITA No. 5461/Del/2014 and ITA No. 6416/Del/2016 ... cost of acquisition ITA Nos. 2186 & 6416/Del/2016 Neeta Gupta and the one resulting in enhancement after treatment of long term capital gains to short term capital gains (supra). It is in this factual backdrop that the assessee has filed her all the instant four appeals. 5. We advert

Chandrapal Singh, Mathura vs. Income Tax Officer Shivpuri, Shipuri

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed for

ITA 115/AGR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Agra21 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: : Shri Ramit Kochar

Section 143(3)Section 253(3)Section 69

there are four co-owners of the said land. The assessee had purchased the said land at Kota, Rajasthan in 2013-14 , and short term capital gain earned by the assessee was to the tune of Rs.4,59,065/-. The assessee submitted before the AO that the said short term ... same to the income of the assessee so that the same can be brought to income-tax. The afore-said short term capital gains were separately added by the Assessing Officer to the income of the assessee, and the matter attained finality so far as chargeability

Chandrapal Singh, Mathura vs. Income Tax Oficer Shivpuri, Shivpuri

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed for

ITA 114/AGR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Agra21 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: : Shri Ramit Kochar

Section 143(3)Section 253(3)Section 69

there are four co-owners of the said land. The assessee had purchased the said land at Kota, Rajasthan in 2013-14 , and short term capital gain earned by the assessee was to the tune of Rs.4,59,065/-. The assessee submitted before the AO that the said short term ... same to the income of the assessee so that the same can be brought to income-tax. The afore-said short term capital gains were separately added by the Assessing Officer to the income of the assessee, and the matter attained finality so far as chargeability

Chandrapal Singh, Mathura vs. Income Tax Officer Shivpuri, Gwalior

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed for

ITA 113/AGR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Agra21 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: : Shri Ramit Kochar

Section 143(3)Section 253(3)Section 69

there are four co-owners of the said land. The assessee had purchased the said land at Kota, Rajasthan in 2013-14 , and short term capital gain earned by the assessee was to the tune of Rs.4,59,065/-. The assessee submitted before the AO that the said short term ... same to the income of the assessee so that the same can be brought to income-tax. The afore-said short term capital gains were separately added by the Assessing Officer to the income of the assessee, and the matter attained finality so far as chargeability

Rimple Saxena, Panvel vs. ITO Ward 2, Panvel

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2413/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2413/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Rimple Saxena, Vs. Ito, Ward-2, Sai Villa, Plot No.114, Panvel Flat No.102, Sector-I, Vijay Marg, New Panvel – 410 206 Maharashtra Pan : Bdjps3014H Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Ajinkya M. VaishampayanFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 250(6)

judgment assessment u/s.144 of the Act making adding of the said sum of Rs.1.02 crore as income of the assessee under the head ‘Short Term Capital Gain’. 5. Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before the ld.CIT(A) which came to be dismissed for non-prosecution. Now the assessee is in appeal ... solitary issue that arises for our consideration is whether the authorities below were justified in making addition of Rs.1.02 crore as short term capital gain in the facts of the present case. On perusal of the impugned order, we find that the ld.CIT(A) has not decided the case

Growmore Research and Assets Management, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC-4(1) (Erstwhile DCIT-31, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals are treated as partly allowed

ITA 453/MUM/2023[1992-93]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jan 2025AY 1992-93

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta and ShriDharmeshFor Respondent: Dr.P. Daniel – Spl. Counsel
Section 144

aggregate amount of Rs.1,19,70,000/-. The AO accepted the details of purchases. Accordingly, he computed short term capital gain of Rs.10,78,000/- (Rs.1,30,48,000 (-) Rs.1,19,70,000) and assessed the same as income in this year. 10.2. According to the assessee, the profit from

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, CC-4(3) Central Range-4, Mumbai vs. M/S Growmore Research and Assets Management Limited, Mumbai

ITA 1125/MUM/2023[1992-93]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jan 2025AY 1992-93

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta and ShriDharmesh ShahFor Respondent: Dr.P. Daniel – Spl. Counsel
Section 144

aggregate amount of Rs.1,19,70,000/-. The AO accepted the details of purchases. Accordingly, he computed short term capital gain of Rs.10,78,000/- (Rs.1,30,48,000 (-) Rs.1,19,70,000) and assessed the same as income in this year. 10. 2. According to the assessee, the profit

Panchsheel Solvent Pvt. Ltd., Rajanandgaon vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Raipur

Appeal is allowed, partly for statistical purposes

ITA 110/RPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur20 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 110/Rpr/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2016-17)

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal & Vimal KumarFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 250

reason that the lumpsum adhock addition of Rs.5,98,030/-on account of clerical error made by assessee and treating the same as short term capital gain by the Hon Assessing officer is bad in law and justified the order of Id AO by learned commissioner without application of mind ... income of the assessee for the year under consideration, as the assessee failed to furnished any supporting for its contention as income from short term capital gain on sale of plant and machinery." Despite the repeated opportunity of hearing to appellant, no explanation has been furnished by the appellant during

Ranchodbhai Karamshibhai Dhami, Rajkot vs. ITO, Ward-1(2)(2), Rajkot

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 431/RJT/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot20 Jan 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Diesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 431/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) Ranchodbhai Karamshibhai Dhami. Vs. Ito Ward-1(2)(2), Rajkot. M. N. Manvar & Co. Ca, 504, Star Plaza, Nr. Circuit House, Phulchhab Chowk, Rajkot. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabts8458H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri M. N. Manvar, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 19/ 12/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 20 /01/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre [(In Short “Nfac/Ld.Cit(A)”] Vide Order Dated 01/05/2024, Which In Turn Assessment Order Passed By Ld. Assessing Officer U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”). 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Followed: 1). Cit(A)-Nfac Erred In Law & Facts In Confirming The Addition Of Short Term Capital Gain Made By Ao Rs. 29,56,695/- U/S 50C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) For The Income In The Nature Of Business

For Appellant: Shri M. N. Manvar, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 50C

appeal raised by the assessee are as followed: 1). CIT(A)-NFAC erred in Law and facts in confirming the addition of short term capital gain made by AO Rs. 29,56,695/- u/s 50C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the act) for the income in the nature

Sanjeev Kumar Mittal 3-J, Block Area, Shri Ganga Nagar-335001, Rajasthan vs. Harish Chander Mittal ACIT Circle Sriganganagar Current Jurisdictional AO DCIT CC-II Ludhiana, Punjab

ITA 604/CHANDI/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 Jan 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Krinwant Sahayassessment Year 2017-18 Sanjeev Kumar Mittal Vs. Harish Chander Mittal, 3-J, Block Area, Acit Shri Ganga Nagar, Circle Sri Ganganagar Rajasthan - 335 001 Current Jurisdictional Ao Dcit Cc-Ii, Ludhiana, Punjab Tan/ Pan : Abbpm 9387 N (Appellant) (Respondent) Applicant By: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Adv. Respondent By: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Adll. Cit, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 02 01 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 20 01 2025 O R D E R

For Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Adll. CIT, Sr. D.R
Section 50C

During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO on perusal of details filed along with ITR, noticed that the assessee has declared Short Term Capital Gain of Rs.25000/- and accordingly, assessee was required to furnish details regarding this capital gain of Rs.25000/-. In reply, the assessee stated that

Vaibhav Kishore Bansal, Chandigarh vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Panchkula

In the result, appeal of the Assessee’s is allowed

ITA 495/CHANDI/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal, CA and Ms. Shruti Khandelwal, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT(DR)
Section 10(38)Section 147Section 263

information received from the Directorate of Income Tax (Investigation) New Delhi, that the assessee has claimed bogus long term capital gain / short term capital gain through the use of penny stocks being sold to facilitate these transactions by way of manipulated trading. The PCIT, noted as per information available that

Everest Kanto Cylinder Ltd, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC Bengaluru, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 782/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jan 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Miss Padmavathy S.Everest Kanto Cylinder Ltd Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income- 204, Raheja Centre, Free Press Tax,Circle 3(4), Mumbai Journal Marg, Nariman Point World Trade Centre 1, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400 021 Mumbai-400 005 Pan : Aaace30836F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Shekhar GuptaFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das CIT DR
Section 143(1)Section 250Section 37(1)Section 41(2)Section 50

under section 41(2) of the Act. This analogy squarely applies to the provisions of section 50 as well which only provides for short term capital gain where the full value of consideration is in excess of WDV etc. It does not provide for the converse situation

J P Trust, Mumbai vs. Dy Comm. of Income Tax It Circle 32(1), Mumbai

Accordingly the ground raised by the assessee in this regard is allowed

ITA 6379/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Narender Kumar Choudhry, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri B Laxmi Kanth, Sr. DR
Section 111ASection 143(1)Section 154Section 70(2)

granting set-off of current year short-term capital loss of Rs. 43,75,895/-sustained u/s 111A, against current year short term capital gains and thereby assessing total income at Rs. 9,92,76,220/- instead of returned income of Rs. 9,49,00,320. J. P. Trust ... current year short-term capital loss incurred u/s 111A amounting to Rs. 43,75,895/- ought to be set off against current year short term capital gains taxable under normal provision. 2. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, edit, delete, modify, or change all of appeal

Sejal Jignesh Shah, Mumbai vs. The Income Tax Officer-19(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 444/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Sunil Kumar Singh, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Fenil Bhatt, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Bhangepatil Pushkaraj Ramesh, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68

receipt of information, the ITR of assessee for AY 2012-13 was verified wherein, it was found that, assessee has shown Short term capital gain of Rs.20,291/-. 5. Section 147 of the Act specifically states that, if AO has reason to believe that any income chargeable

Fidelity Asian Values Plc, Gurgaon Gurgaon vs. Dy Comm of Income Tax, (Intl Taxt), Circle-2(3)(1), Mumbai

Accordingly the ground raised by the assessee in this regard is allowed

ITA 4748/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jan 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Ms. Hirali Desai / Shri Hardik
Section 111ASection 115ASection 143(3)Section 70(2)

Transaction Amount Amount (in Rs.) (in Rs.) INCOME UNDER HEAD 'CAPITAL GAINS' Long-term Capital Loss on Equity shares (4,21,22,784) Short-term Capital Gain chargeable to tax @ 30% 2,71,89,981 under section 115AD of the Income-tax Act ('the Act') Short-term Capital Loss chargeable ... under section 111A of the Act (5,26,98,472) Net Short-term Capital Gain/ (Loss) carried (5,26,98,472) forward Total Loss available for carry forward (Short (9,48,21,256) Term + Long Term) 3. The AO was of the view that the Short Term Capital Loss (STCL

Begraj Agarwal & Ors HUF, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 34(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1370/KOL/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Jan 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Ito, Ward 34(1), Kolkata Begraj Agarwal & Ors. Huf Aaykar Bhavan Poorva, 110, Diamond Heritage, Unit No.609, Strand Road, Kolkata-700001 Shantipally, Kolkata-700107, Vs. West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabhb8295F Assessee By : Shri S.M. Surana, Ar Revenue By : Shri Amuldeep Kaur, Dr Date Of Hearing: 19.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.01.2025

For Appellant: Shri S.M. Surana, ARFor Respondent: Shri Amuldeep Kaur, DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 68

taken accommodation entries from M/S Sulabha Engg Ltd of bogus Long Term Capital Gain to the tune of ₹92,54,491/- and Short Term Capital Gain of ₹1,79,400/- on the transactions of shares through Sulbha Engineering. The ld. AO noted as the assessee failed to disclose the Long ... Term Capital Gain / Short Term Capital Gain while filing the return of income for the impugned assessment year. Therefore, he had reason to believe that the total income under the head capital gain to the tune of ₹94,38,891/-has escaped assessment within the meaning of Section