“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

Jaynt Vasudeo Aradhye, Solapur vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Solapur

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

ITA 683/PUN/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Oct 2024AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.683/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23 Jaynt Vasudeo Aradhye, Vs. Dcit, Circle-1, Solapur. Villa No.25, Indradhanu, Laxmi Peth, Vishnu Mill Compound, Solapur- 413001. Pan : Aappa8903M Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Deepak Chintaman Gadgil Revenue By Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde : Date Of Hearing 06.08.2024 : Date Of Pronouncement : 21.10.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 07.02.2024 Passed By Ld. Addl./Jcit(A)-1, Coimbatore For The Assessment Year 2022-23 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “I. The Cpc Was Not Correct Both Factually & Legally In Not Considering The Claim Of Brought Forwarded Short Term Capital Loss Of Rs 27,78,028/-. 11. Section 143(1) As It Stands On The Statute Books As On Today, Does Not Permit Either Cpc Or The Ao To Make Such Adjustments As They Are Beyond The Scope Of The Said Section.

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chintaman Gadgil

Section 10Section 10ASection 115BSection 143(1)Section 155BSection 16Section 23Section 24Section 32Section 32A

return of income brought forward short capital loss of Rs.27,78,028/- was claimed and the same was set-off against the short term capital gain income of Rs.43,03,555/-. It was further 5 clarified that this short term capital loss of Rs.27,78,028/- was arrived in last ... year i.e. during the assessment year 2021-22 and was carried forward from assessment year 2021-22. This short term capital gain loss of Rs.27,78,028/- was accepted by CPC by issuing an intimation u/s 143(1) of the IT Act and accordingly it was carried forward to assessment

Nikshal Poperties Pvt. Ltd, Vadodara vs. The ITO, Ward-3(1)(1), Ahmedabad

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 206/AHD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumaray Sl.

For Respondent: Shri Kamlesh Makwana, CIT-DR

Section 250(6)

names were also disclosed. Thus, the assessee, M/s. Nikshal Properties Pvt. Ltd, repeatedly contended to its Assessing Officer that both the transactions of short term capital gains on sale of land and the loss on commodity transaction, set off against the same, was bogus and only commission income ought ... Ardor Overseas Pvt Ltd VS. DCIT and ITA No.206Ahd/2018- Nikshal Properties Pvt Ltd. AY : 2014-15 transaction to be bogus and taxed the short term capital gains returned by the assessee, rejecting its explanation of the same being a mere accommodation entry. 6. At the same time, on the basis

ITO, Ward-1(1)(3), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Ardor Overseas Private Limited, Ahmedabad

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2812/AHD/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumaray Sl.

For Respondent: Shri Kamlesh Makwana, CIT-DR

Section 250(6)

Ardor Overseas Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy. CIT, Circle-1(1)(2), Ahmedabad

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2785/AHD/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumaray Sl.

For Respondent: Shri Kamlesh Makwana, CIT-DR

Section 250(6)

Kannan Asha, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-1(1), Chennai

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

ITA 1545/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1545/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 V. Kannan Asha, The Ito, Old No.6, New No.15, Ncw-1(1), Veera Perumal Koil Street, Chennai. Mylapore, Chennai-600 004. [Pan: Akrpa 9370 Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 144Section 45Section 45(1)

sale of the impugned land is required to be taxed under the head "Long Term Capital gains" and not as "Short term capital Gains".as mentioned in the assessment order. Therefore the sale consideration of Rs.2,37,25,000/- arising in the hands of the appellant for the Assessment Year

Mitul Pravinchandra Malani, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir. 33, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed while the penalty of ₹9,560/- imposed is hereby cancelled

ITA 931/KOL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Anil Kochar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Subhendu Datta, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

shares”. The Ld. AO found on going through the return of income, share trading details and other details that the assessee had shown short term capital gains during the financial year under consideration and had also suffered short-term loss. The assessee had claimed share loss for the “alleged penny ... stock” of M/s Life Line Drugs and Pharma Limited which was adjusted against the short-term capital gain arising during the financial year and which had reduced the tax liability. The assessee had purchased 15,000 shares of M/s Life Line Drugs and Pharma Limited

Rahul Kasliwal, Jaipur vs. ITO, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1036/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Sisodia, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Chaudhary, JCIT D/R

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 68Section 69C

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ] U

Mrs. Shruti Mayank Shah, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle 19(3), Mumbai, Piramal Chamber

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

ITA 4370/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singhshri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year 2018-19

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Bhangepatil Pushkaraj Ramesh - Sr.DR

Section 10(35)Section 115BSection 250Section 250(6)Section 36(1)(iii)

Without prejudice to Ground No. 1, the Appellant submits that the said Interest otherwise is to be allowed as a deduction from Short Term capital gain earned from sale of 2 securities out of investment in 3 Securities. 3. Without Prejudice to Ground No. 1 and 2, the transaction

Konark Fixtures Ltd( Successor to Kalinga Fixtures Pvt Ltd), Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle-6(1)(2), Mumbai

Appeal is allowed

ITA 2028/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 37Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, “E” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT

ITO Ward-22(1)(6), Mumbai vs. Jalpa Nitesh Shriwardhankar, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2842/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishishri Sandeep Singh Karhailito, Ward-22(1)(6), Mumbai – 400012 Maharashtra ……………. Appellant

For Appellant: Shri Tejveer Singh, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sushil Bhagwat Shendge, Sr.DR

Section 143(1)Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H (SMC)” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL

ITO, Ward-1, Dhule vs. Mitul Jagdishchandra Shah, Nandurbar

ITA 1433/PUN/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri

For Appellant: Shri R. ShahFor Respondent: Shri Keyur Patel, CIT-DR And

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 151

Assessing Officer thereafter took-up scrutiny and completed his sec.143(3) assessment on 06.03.2013 (pages 42 to 47 in the PB) adding short term capital gains of Rs.71,30,913/- thereby assessing taxable income in assessee’s case to the tune of Rs.2,96,67,863/- 4. We proceed further

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Dhule vs. Mitul Jagdishchandra Shah, Nandurbar

ITA 1432/PUN/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Oct 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri

For Appellant: Shri R. ShahFor Respondent: Shri Keyur Patel, CIT-DR And

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 151

Mitul Jagdishchandra Shah, Surat vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - Dhule, Dhule

ITA 1339/PUN/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri

For Appellant: Shri R. ShahFor Respondent: Shri Keyur Patel, CIT-DR And

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 151

Mitul Jagdishchandra Shah, Surat vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle, Dhule

ITA 1338/PUN/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Oct 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri

For Appellant: Shri R. ShahFor Respondent: Shri Keyur Patel, CIT-DR And

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 151

Bhavana Lalit Jain, Navi Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, WD-15(1)(1), Mumbai

The appeals are allowed

ITA 1016/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shriraj Kumar Chauhan, Jm

Section 10Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 68

taxes. It was learnt that the trading in penny stock was manipulated affair to generate entries of bogus long-term capital gain and short-term capital gain. The shares of Surabhi investment and chemicals Ltd were also found as one of the penny stocks mentioned in the investigation report which ... statements have been recorded and confirmed that the shares of this company have been used for providing long- term capital gain and short-term capital gain which is bogus. The various exit providers have also confirmed the same. 11. The learned assessing Ofc therefore she issued a final show cause

Mr Sanjay Rupachand Tathed, Ahmednagar vs. ITO Ward 2, Ahmednagar

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

ITA 1502/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Prasad S. BhandariFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai, Addl CIT DR

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 50C

side of the assessee. In view of the above, the Assessing Officer, invoking the provisions of section 50C of the Act, determined the short term capital gain of Rs.91,03,000/- in the hands of the assessee. 4. Since the assessee did not appear before the CIT(A) / NFAC despite ... admitted fact that due to non-compliance to the statutory notices issued by the Assessing Officer, he passed the ex-parte order determining short term capital gain in the hands of the 4 assessee at Rs.91,03,000/-. We find due to non-compliance to the notices issued

DCIT 3(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Lml Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1488/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Smt.Renu Jauhri ()

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 44ASection 50

holding that the assessee had not filed inaccurate particulars of income without appreciating the fact that the assessee had not offered Short Term Capital Gain u/s. 50 of the Act on sale of depreciable fixed asset as its income in return of income or during the scrutiny proceedings. ?" "2. Whether ... completed on 12/12/2009 determining total loss of Rs.35,33,07,050/-. It is observed from the assessment record that the Ld.AO disallowed short term capital gains claimed by the assessee to Rs.7,29,18,297/-. 2.2. The Ld.CIT(A) recorded the reasons that led to the disallowance by the Ld.AO

Nirmal Singh, Ayodhya vs. ITO Ward-1, Faizabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 83/LKW/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow10 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria & Sa. No. 07/Lkw/2024 (Arising Out Of Ita. No.83/Lkw/2024 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Nirmal Singh The Income Tax Officer, V. 15/2/16, Janki Ghat, Ayodhya- Ward-1, 224123, Faizabad (Up). Cinema Road, Faizabad- New-224001. Pan:Bdsps4165C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri. Rakesh Garg, Adv Respondent By: Shri. Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 24 09 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 10 10 2024 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. Rakesh Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Shri. Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

deleted 9. Because the CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in upholding the addition of Rs. 49,11,947/- as short term capital gains being the difference between the actual consideration received and stamp value as adopted in respect of the part property sold, such addition being ... made u/s 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act and an addition of Rs.49,11,947/- was made towards Short Term Capital Gain (STCG). The aforesaid additions have been made by the Assessing Officer (“AO”), in respect of transactions in immovable property. The assessee and his wife Mrs Anita Singh

Sharwan Kumar Sethi, New Delhi vs. PCIT-17, New Delhi

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

ITA 4585/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shripradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 263Section 271(1)(c)

sold it on 13.05.2011 i.e. holding of the said plot less than 36 months and further found that instead of claiming Short Term Capital Gain, the Assessee has treated it as Long Term Capital Gain therefore, Ld. AO passed rectification order under section 154 of the Act on 11.07.2016 wherein ... added Rs. 9,48,911/- to the income of the Assessee treating the same as Short Term Capital Gain. The Ld. PCIT exercising power conferred under section 263 of the Act, on perusal of the record found that the issue as to whether holding of asset for 36 months

Uti Spectrum Fund, Mauritius vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Bandra Kurla Complex

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

ITA 3558/MUM/2024[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Oct 2024AY 2019-2020

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S. & Shri. Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250

erred in not examining the Appellant's case on principles of natural justice considering the fact that in the intimation u/s 143(1), short term capital gain has been considered at INR 36,90,994/- instead of INR 18,45,497/- resulting in double taxation of the same income twice ... issued dated 30-04-2020. As per the aforesaid intimation, the CPC has inadvertently considered the Short term Capital Gains (‘STCG) at INR 36,90,994/- instead of INR 18,45,497/- as computed in the ROI thus resulting in double addition of same income. Thus, determining a total income