← 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

Elengovan Raju, Chennai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward 17(4), Chennai

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

ITA 811/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.811/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 Mr. Elengovan Raju, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Block 42, First Floor, Flat E Cee Dee Non Corporate Ward 17(4), No. 16, Yes, Chinnaipattinam, Ammapettai, Bsnl Building, Fifth Floor, Income Tax Kancheepuram, Chennai 603 108. Office, Bsnl Tower, Greams Road, [Pan: Ajdpr4615E] Chennai 600 006. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Quadir Hoseyn, Advocate & Dr. L. Natarajan, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 11.07.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 19.07.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 06.03.2024 Passed By The Ld. Cit(A) [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Assessee Raised 7 Grounds Of Appeal, Amongst Which Only Issue Emanates For Our Consideration As To Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified In Confirming The Order Of The Assessing Officer Without There Being Proper Opportunity To The Assessee.

For Appellant: Shri N. Quadir Hoseyn, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT
Section 144BSection 147

short] determining total income of the assessee at ₹.42,44,340/- as against NIL income, inter alia, making addition on account of undisclosed short term capital gain and undisclosed interest income. On perusal of the assessment order at page 5, we note that the Assessing Officer held that the assessee

DCIT, Central Circle-3, Vadodara vs. M/S. Tash Investment Pvt. Ltd, Vadodara

The appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 821/AHD/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarआयकर अपील सं / Ita No. 821/Ahd/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2015-16 बनाम बनाम बनाम बनाम Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Tash Investment Pvt. Ltd., Income-Tax, 9Th Floor, Abs Tower, Vs. Central Circle-3, Old Padra Road, Vadodara Vadodara, Gujarat Pan: Aaact 6737 A अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Milin Mehta, Ar ""थ" की ओर से / Revenue By: Shri Pratik Sharma, Sr Dr सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 25/04/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 15/07/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Annapurna Guptapresent Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-12, Ahmedabad [Hereinafter Referred To As "Cit(A)" For Short] Dated 18.01.2018 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act" For Short], For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16. 2. Grounds Raised Are As Under:- “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 1,23,80,013/- (Rs.31,24,113/- Found From Locker No. 1483 Of Bank Of Baroda + Rs. 92,55,900/- Found From Locker No.430 Of Royal Bank Of Scotland) Made On Account Of Unexplained Jewellery Without Considering The Fact That The Assessee Could Not Explain The Source Of Investment & Also Could Not Submit The Documentary Evidences Regarding The Source Of Jewellery Like Purchase Bills, Vouchers Etc. Dcit Vs. Tash Investment Pvt Ltd Ay : 2015-16 2

For Appellant: Shri Milin Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Shri Pratik Sharma, Sr DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 250

characterizing the income earned by the assesse from dealing in shares as business income as opposed to long term and short term capital gains returned by the assessee on the same. 4. The grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue challenging the order of the ld. CIT(A) accordingly ... taxable under the head ‘income from business and profession’, as opposed to the assessee treating it as income earned from long term and short term capital gains. 13. The ld. Counsel for the assessee fairly pointed out that identical issue had been adjudicated by the ITAT in the case