← 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

Hasmukh Ugarchand Gadhecha, HUF, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-5(2)(2), Ahmedabad

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 591/AHD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.591/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2013-14 Hasmukh Ugarchand The Ito बनाम/ Gadhecha, Huf Ward-5(2)(2) V/S. 3Rd Floor, Anjalee House Ahmedabad – 380 015 Cg Road Navrangpura Ahmedabad – 380 009 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaahg 7194 K (अपीलाथ$/ Appellant) (%& यथ$/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Deepak R. Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Hargovind Singh, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/02/2026 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 26/12/2025 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2013-2014. 2. The Assessee, In This Appeal, Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: Hasmukh Ugarchand Gadhecha, Huf Vs. Ito Asstt.Year : 2013-14 2 “1. That The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Law & In The Facts Of The Case In Confirming The Order Of The Ao In Reopening Assessment U/S.147 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Deepak R. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Hargovind Singh, Sr.DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 250Section 68Section 69C

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद "ायपीठ “सी“,अहमदाबाद । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, AHMEDABAD "ी संजय गग", "ाियक सद

Income Tax Office Ward 3(3) Pune, Pune vs. Ramesh Magaramji Muleva, Pune

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3120/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Manish SomaniFor Respondent: Smt. Shraddha Nichal
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 251Section 69

total income of the assessee at Rs.3,05,93,762/- by making an addition of - (i) Rs.1,14,97,582/- under the head „short term capital gain‟ and (ii) Rs.1,86,00,000/- as unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act, vide his order dated 10.03.2023 passed u/s 147 r.w.s

Ramesh Baburao Kadam, Navi Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 42(3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 5890/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalassessment Year : 2016-17 Ramesh Baburao Kadam, Income Tax Officer, Suyog Samuh Co-Op. Hsg. Soc., Ward-42(3)(2), B 704, Sec 8, Plot No. 41 Vs. Mumbai. Sanpada, Navi Mumbai-400705. Pan : Azxpk7228G (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Kushal Gada (Virtually Present) For Revenue : Shri Annavaram Kosuri Date Of Hearing : 29-01-2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 09-02-2026 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M :

For Appellant: Shri Kushal GadaFor Respondent: Shri Annavaram Kosuri
Section 147

brought to tax an amount of Rs. 1,35,58,800/- being the amount received on sale of immoveable property as Short Term Capital Gains and assessed income was accordingly determined at Rs. 1,35,58,800/-. The assessee thereafter 2 carried the matter in appeal before the Ld.CIT

Ashwitha Reddy Baddam, Nizamabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Nizamabad

ITA 1066/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

scrutiny and during the course of assessment proceedings, it was seen that the assessee sold two flats for Rs.26,88,000/- and computed short term capital gains of Rs.2,01,030/- after claiming cost of acquisition at Rs.700 per SFT for super built up area and cost of acquisition ... Ld.CIT(A) for the reasons stated in their appellate order dated 26.12.2024, upheld the additions made by the A.O. towards computation of short-term capital gains from sale of property. - 8. Shri A.V.Raghuram, the learned counsel for the assessee has submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) erred in sustaining the additions

Mohan Reddy Gaddam, Nizamabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Nizamabad

ITA 1065/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

scrutiny and during the course of assessment proceedings, it was seen that the assessee sold two flats for Rs.26,88,000/- and computed short term capital gains of Rs.2,01,030/- after claiming cost of acquisition at Rs.700 per SFT for super built up area and cost of acquisition ... Ld.CIT(A) for the reasons stated in their appellate order dated 26.12.2024, upheld the additions made by the A.O. towards computation of short-term capital gains from sale of property. - 8. Shri A.V.Raghuram, the learned counsel for the assessee has submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) erred in sustaining the additions

Gaddam Mohan Reddy, Nizamabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Nizamabad

ITA 1064/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

scrutiny and during the course of assessment proceedings, it was seen that the assessee sold two flats for Rs.26,88,000/- and computed short term capital gains of Rs.2,01,030/- after claiming cost of acquisition at Rs.700 per SFT for super built up area and cost of acquisition ... Ld.CIT(A) for the reasons stated in their appellate order dated 26.12.2024, upheld the additions made by the A.O. towards computation of short-term capital gains from sale of property. - 8. Shri A.V.Raghuram, the learned counsel for the assessee has submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) erred in sustaining the additions

Gaddam Mohan Reddy, Nizamabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Nizamabad

ITA 1063/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

scrutiny and during the course of assessment proceedings, it was seen that the assessee sold two flats for Rs.26,88,000/- and computed short term capital gains of Rs.2,01,030/- after claiming cost of acquisition at Rs.700 per SFT for super built up area and cost of acquisition ... Ld.CIT(A) for the reasons stated in their appellate order dated 26.12.2024, upheld the additions made by the A.O. towards computation of short-term capital gains from sale of property. - 8. Shri A.V.Raghuram, the learned counsel for the assessee has submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) erred in sustaining the additions

DCIT (CC)-8(4), Mumbai vs. Reena Ratnesh Jain, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 3888/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokardcit(Cc)-8(4) Reena Ratnesh Jain Room No. 659, 6Th Floor, 902/903, A Wing, Kalinga Tower, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Vs. Nirmal Nagar, Near D-Mart, Mumbai-400 020 Mulund (W), Mumbai-400 080 Pan/Gir No. Aeapj 6605 C (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Bhadresh Doshi Respondent By : Shri Annavaram Kosuri (Sr. Ar) Date Of Hearing : 03.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.02.2026 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey: This Is An Appeal By The Department, Against Order Dated 26.03.2025 Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Mumbai (‘Ld.Cit(A) For Short), Pertaining To The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2016-17. 2. Though, The Department Has Raised Multiple Grounds, However, The Dispute In Short Is In Relation To Deletion Of Addition Made Of Rs.80,23,019/-, Being Bogus Long Term Capital Gain (‘Ltcg’ For Short) Added U/S. 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ For Short) & Addition Of An Amount Of Rs.80,230/-, Being Commission Paid By The Assessee For Arranging The Accommodation Entry Of Bogus Ltcg.

For Appellant: Shri Bhadresh DoshiFor Respondent: Shri Annavaram Kosuri (Sr. AR)
Section 147Section 68

declaring income of Rs.9,15,160/-. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer received information from the Investigation Wing of the department that the LTCG and Short Term Capital Gain (STCG for short) offered by the assessee from sale of shares M/s Goenka Business and Finance Ltd. are non-genuine as M/s Goenka

Kamleshbhai Manubhai Patel, Vadodara vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara

The appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 814/AHD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Tr Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 143(3)Section 50C

assessable to tax under the head ‘capital gain’. The AO had applied the provision of section 50C of the Act, to compute the short-term capital gain derived by the assessee on the sale of land. It was found that the stamp duty paid on the sale of land ... taken by the assessee is dismissed. 6. Ground no. - 2 pertains to addition of Rs.1,05,22,850/- on account of short term capital gain on sale of land. The Ld. AR submitted that the finding given by the AO that the assessee was not engaged in business of trading

ACIT, Central Circle 2(3), Ahmedabad vs. Dynamatic Developers Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 572/AHD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Tr Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Years: 2013-14

Section 147Section 148Section 69ASection 69C

broker M/s Anand Rathi Commodities Ltd. was bogus and sham transaction and hence, the profit of Rs. 1,00,79.414/ was treated at short Term Capital Gain. 4. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CITA) has failed to appreciate that Senous Fraud

Madhukar Ganpat Dhakwal, Mangaon vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 5, New Panvel

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

ITA 2434/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rama Kant Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं / Ita No.2434 & 2418/Pun/2025 धििाारण वषा /Assessment Year: 2018-19 Madhukar Ganpat Ito, Ward 8(5), Dhakwal, Raigad 1/B At Tilore Post Vs. Vighawali Tal Mangaon, Wighawali B.O Tilore, Raigarh Maharashtra Pan-Bfopd7627G अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent Assessee By: Ca Hiral D. Sejpal & Ankita P. Gorde Department By: Smt. Sonal L Sonkavde, Addl-Cit Date Of Hearing: 03-02-2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 16-03-2026 आदेश/Order Per Shri Vinay Bhamore: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Same Order Dated 25.08.2025 Passed By Ld. [Cit(A)] Nfac, Delhi For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

For Respondent: Smt. Sonal L Sonkavde
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 250Section 50C

determined taxable income at ₹ 63,65,000/-. The above said income includes addition of ₹ 63,65,000/- on account of short term capital gain on sale of immovable property. 4. Being aggrieved with the above assessment order the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT appeal. Since the assessee

Madhukar Ganpat Dhakwal, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 8(5), Raigad

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

ITA 2418/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rama Kant Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं / Ita No.2434 & 2418/Pun/2025 धििाारण वषा /Assessment Year: 2018-19 Madhukar Ganpat Ito, Ward 8(5), Dhakwal, Raigad 1/B At Tilore Post Vs. Vighawali Tal Mangaon, Wighawali B.O Tilore, Raigarh Maharashtra Pan-Bfopd7627G अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent Assessee By: Ca Hiral D. Sejpal & Ankita P. Gorde Department By: Smt. Sonal L Sonkavde, Addl-Cit Date Of Hearing: 03-02-2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 16-03-2026 आदेश/Order Per Shri Vinay Bhamore: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Same Order Dated 25.08.2025 Passed By Ld. [Cit(A)] Nfac, Delhi For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

For Respondent: Smt. Sonal L Sonkavde
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 250Section 50C

determined taxable income at ₹ 63,65,000/-. The above said income includes addition of ₹ 63,65,000/- on account of short term capital gain on sale of immovable property. 4. Being aggrieved with the above assessment order the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT appeal. Since the assessee

Income Tax Officer, Ward - 3(1), Pune vs. Sachin Govind Apte, Pune

Accordingly, Grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1720/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.1720/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Years: 2013-14 The Income Tax Officer, V Sachin Govind Apte, Ward-3(1), Pune. S. 759-63, Prabhat Road, Erandwana, Pune – 411004. Pan: Aavpa9458P Appellant/ Revenue Respondent /Assessee Assessee By Ms.Vaishnavi Badwe Revenue By Shri Amit Bobde - Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 16/12/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 03/02/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2013-14 Dated 15.05.2025 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Act, Dated 30.03.2016. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Hon'Ble Cit (A) Was Justified In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.78,72,000/- Made Under Head Stcg & Disallowance Of Deduction U/S 54F Of The It. Act, 1961? 2. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Hon‟Ble Cti (A) Was Justified In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.1,20,00,000/- Made On Account Of Deemed Dividend U/S Section 2(22)(E) Of The I.T. Act, 1961?

Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 250Section 54F

claimed deduction u/s.54F of 2 ITA No.1720/PUN/2025 [D] the Act. However, the AO denied the claim of 54F and held that it was short term capital gain. AO alleged that the Assessee became owner of the said plot only on 04/03/2013. AO also made addition u/s.2(22)(e) of Rs.1 ... became property of Assessee i.e.Sachin Apte on 3 ITA No.1720/PUN/2025 [D] 04/03/2013, hence AO held that on sale of said plot there was Short Term Capital Gain. On appeal filed by the Assessee, Ld.CIT(A) specifically held in the order u/s 250 that Partnership Firm Empire Ventures dissolved with effect

Income Tax Officer, Coimbatore vs. Acl Industries Limited, Coimbatore

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

ITA 2592/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K (Vice President), SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Shiva Srinivas, CITFor Respondent: None
Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

show-cause notice isused, assessee sought more time to comply. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO noticed that assessee claimed Short Term Capital Gains (STCG) on sale of immovable property (property sold on 02.12.2015). The assessee had calculated the STCG at Rs.2,68,84,985/- where ... which was the written down value as on 01.04.2015. Accordingly, the AO disallowed loss of Rs.3,92,54,617/- in computing the short-term capital gains on sale of immovable property. Further, AO noticed :- 3 -: that as per P&L account, assessee claimed total turnover of Rs.20,33,800/-, opening

Narottambhai Chhotubhai Patel, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(3)(1), Surat

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

ITA 1185/SRT/2025[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Surat30 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

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

Section 144Section 147Section 249(4)(b)Section 250

Asst. Year : 2015-16 - 2– 2) The Ld. Assessing Officer has erred in law and on facts by treating the capital gain as Short Term Capital Gain (STCG), whereas the transaction in question clearly pertains to Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG). The addition made on this incorrect basis is therefore ... order without considering the cost of transfer, cost of acquisition and cost improvement and treating the said long term capital gain as a short term capital gain which is invalid and bad in law and liable to be quashed. 4) The Hon’ble ITAT is prayed to give a chance

Karunesh Kumar Shukla, Lucknow vs. Income Tax Officer-1(1), Lucknow

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

ITA 668/LKW/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Jan 2026AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Sh. Samrat Chandra, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Koushlendra Tiwari, CIT DR
Section 144Section 148Section 69Section 69A

facts in in adding an amount of Rs. 6,77,00,000/-as undisclosed Capital Gain under the head Short Term Capital gain when from the deeds it is clear that the share of sale consideration assessable in the hands of the assessee is Rs. 3,38,50,000/- (Total

Mahesh Kumar Bhati, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward 7(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1860/HYD/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Jan 2026AY 2020-2021

Bench: transfer making it a long term capital asset whereas the A.O. has treated the same as short term capital asset. 4. The assessment made by learned A.O. and upheld by the CIT(A) is incorrect as while computing capital gains indexed cost of acquisition has not been considered leading to excess assessment. 7. For these and other ground which may be raised during OR before the

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250

consideration, the A.O. treated the cost of acquisition of the property at Nil and made addition of entire amount of sale consideration as short term capital gain, completed the assessment by making an addition of Rs.55,38,000/- and passed assessment order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act dated

Syed Omer, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-8(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1404/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Jan 2026AY 2018-19
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

Syed Omer also made an addition of Rs.1,33,996/- as undisclosed commission and an amount of Rs.3,967/- as income from short term capital gain. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the A.O., the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) and the Ld.CIT(A) upheld the order

Bhushan Vasant Parelkar, Mumbai vs. Ward 41(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6322/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2013-14 Bhushan Vasant Parelkar Income Tax Officer, A-204 Saikripa, Navghar Ward 41(2)(1), Road, Mulund East S.O, Vs Mumbai Mumbai - 400081 (Pan: Akdpp6556D) Appellant Respondent Present For: Appellant By : Shri Dharan Gandhi, Advocate Respondent By : Shri Bhagirath Ramawat, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 21.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.01.2026 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Vide Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2025-26/1079866363(1), Dated 22.08.2025, Passed Against The Assessment Order By Ito, Ward-41(2)(1),, U/S. 147 Of The Income-Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 31.05.2023 For Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: “The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Action Of Ld. Ao Of Reopening The Assessment U/S 147 Although The Reopening Is Time Barred & Hence Bad In Law. Bhushan Vasant Parelkar Ay 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Dharan Gandhi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Bhagirath Ramawat, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)(b)Section 50C

realized. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming action of Ld. AO of adding Rs. 41,69,000/- as Short Term Capital Gains. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming action of Ld. AO of not allowing the exemption w/s 54F for investment in new property

Manoj R. Maheshwari, Mumbai vs. ITO 16(1)(4), Mumbai

In the result, ground No.2 raised by the assessee is hereby remanded back to the Ld

ITA 4889/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Mr. Manoj R. Maheshwari, Income Tax Officer, 16(1)(4), Matru Mandir, 2Nd Floor, 318/319, Tardeo Ac Market, Vs. Tardeo Road, Mumbai – 400 007 Mumbai – 400 034 Pan:Acapm7018E (Appellant) (Respondent) :

For Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. AR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

learned CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in sustaining the assessment of Rs.63,96,049/- as short-term capital gain as per ITS data, as against Rs.3,63,656/- worked out by the appellant. Mr. Manoj R. Maheshwari 3. The learned CIT (A) has erred ... filed by the assessee. Though the assessee has raised several grounds, the Ld. AR restricted to adjudicate only ground No.2 on addition/disallowance towards Short Term Capital Gain (“STCG” for short) amounting to Rs.63,96,049/- made by the Ld. AO and upheld by the Ld. CIT(A). In order