← 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

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 4(1)(1), Bangalore vs. Ramesh Narayana Reddy (HUF), Bangalore

ITA 720/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jul 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavdcit, Circle - 4(1)(1) Ramesh Narayana Reddy (Huf) Room No. 230, 2Nd Floor #62, Sonnenahalli Bmtc Building, Koramangala Vs. Mahadevapura Bangalore 560095 Bangalore 560048 Pan – Aamhr4231A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate Revenue By: Shri Subramanian S., Jcit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 24.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.07.2024 O R D E R Per: Prakash Chand Yadav, J.M. The Present Appeal Of The Revenue Challenges The Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/2003-24/1061428431(1) Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 23.02.2024 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) In Respect Of Assessment Year (Ay) 2020-21. 2. Aggrieved With The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) The Revenue Has Come Up In Appeal Before Us & Raised The Following Grounds: - “The Ld. Addl. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 1,18,01,752 As Deemed Rental Income On The Ground That There Was No Addition Made In The Case Of Other Two Co-Owners Of The Same Property For The Same Assessment Year. The Nfac Has Not Considered That The Assessments Of Three Different Co-Owners Were Completed In Faceless Manner. There Is No Algorithm For Allocation Of Cases Of Three Different Assessees Having Common Interest In A Single Property To A Single Assessing Officer For Assessment. Hence, Omission Of Addition In Cases Of Other Two Co-Owners Of The Property Wherein Assesses Is An Owner May Be Because

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S., JCIT-DR
Section 194Section 250

joint development agreement. b. NAFC has erred in taxing capital gain as Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) declared by assessee instead of Short Term Capital Gain (STCG) as assessed by AO. c. NAFC has erred in deleting the addition of Rs 4,75,590/- made by AO on account ... long term capital gain as the assessee has got occupancy certificate only on 25.06.2019and hence the gain arose is taxable as short term capital gain. Accordingly, the AO treated the long term capital gain as short term capital gain and enhanced the income of the assessee. 5. Aggrieved

Vandana Daga, Chennai vs. Pr. CIT, Chennai

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

ITA 1056/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1056/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 Vandana Daga, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 19-C, Nungambakkam High Road, Non Corporate Ward 3(5), Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034. Chennai. [Pan:Aclpv1469P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri M. Karunakaran, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 24.07.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26.07.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 27.03.2024 Passed By The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Chennai 4, Chennai Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. Ground No. 13 Raised In The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Not Pressed & Accordingly Dismissed As Not Pressed. 3. Ground Nos. 1 To 12 Raised By The Assessee Concerning Only Issue Questioning The Validity Of Jurisdiction Assumed By The Ld. Pcit Under Section 263 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri M. Karunakaran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

Officer made no addition on the issue of reopening relating to claims of excess cost of land, less long term capital gains and short term capital gains. The ld. AR drew our attention to the show-cause notice issued by the ld. PCIT and submits that the ld. PCIT issued ... discussions relating to the claims of excess cost of acquisition in respect of claim of long term capital gains and short term capital gains. He argued that the assumption of jurisdiction 3 I.T.A. No.1056/Chny/24 by the ld. PCIT is not maintainable as the Assessing Officer conducted detailed enquiry in respect

ITO-19(2)(4), Mumbai vs. Priti Bharat Parekh, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 447/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Ito-19(2)(4) Vs. Priti Bharat Parekh 507, 5Th Floor, Piramal 6C Landsend Chs 29 D Chambers, Parel, Dongersey Road, Mumbai – 400 012 Malabar Hill Maharashtra – 400006 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaepp1784C Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : B.V. Jhaveri & Ms. Bhargavi Raval Respondent By : H.M. Bhatt Date Of Hearing 14.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 26.06.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): The Present Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(Nfac) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y. 2014-15. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “1. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit (A) Is Right In Quashing The Reopening By The Ao With The Opinion That The Reopening Is Without Jurisdiction & Bad In Law Without Appreciating That The Facts On Which The Reopening Was Done Are Not Available By The Ao At The Time Of Original Assessment 2. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Ld. Cit (A) Is Right In Deleting The Addition Made On Account Of Penny Stock Transaction Without Appreciating The Facts That During The Course Of Investigation, It Was Found That The Scrips In Which The Assessee Traded Is Penny Stock Used For Providing Accommodation Entry Only In Form Of Bogus Ltcg & Stcg & Shared With The Jurisdiction Ao In The Fy 2020-21. 3. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit (A) Is Right In Deleting The Addition Made On Account Of Penny Stock Transaction Without Appreciating The Facts That The Assessee Has Entered

For Appellant: B.V. Jhaveri &For Respondent: H.M. Bhatt
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) is right in ignoring the facts that the assessee has filed ITR-1 and showed short term capital gain of Rs. 4,73,565/- under the head "Income from other Sources under the tag income from share but actually any individual assessee ... state whether you have dealt in to purchase or sale of shares of listed companies during the AY2014-15 2. Please state whether Short Term Capital Gain (STCG)/ Long term Capital Gain (LTCG)/ Short Term Capital Loss (STCL) is claimed in the return of income filed. Please state whether

Farhana Mushtaq Begum, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 30(1)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 2720/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Smt Renu Jauhrifarhana Mushtaq Vs. Ito, Ward – 30(1)(3) C-13, 5Th Floor, Begum Pratyakshar Bhavan, Plot No. 373, Poonam Bandra (E), Mumbai. Nagar, Mahakali Caves Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai – 400 093. Pan/Gir No. Aubpb4014C (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Appellant By Mr. Mohammed Shahab Khan, Adv Respondent By Ms.Jancy Elizabeth Rani. Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 25.07.2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 26.07.2024 Order Per Renu Jauhri, Am: “ The Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-55, Mumbai (In Short “Cit(A)”) Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”). The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: The Hon'Ble Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 55, Mumbai Seriously Erred In Law & On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, In Confirming The Impugned

Section 143(3)Section 50CSection 50C(1)Section 50C(2)Section 50C(3)

dated 30/03/2016, Assessing Alleged Income at Rs. 28,08,777/-, being Alleged Addition of Rs. 18,33,820/- on account of Short Term Capital Gains and treated as Alleged Income U/s 50C(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without appreciating that the Valuation of the Capital Asset ... assessee had sold the residential flat located at Borivalli, Mumbai for a consideration of Rs. 41,00,000/- vide sale deed dated 0403.2013. Short term capital gain of Rs. 3,00,000/- was offered for taxation after reducing the cost of acquisition of Rs. 38,00,000/-. As the stamp