← 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

Gopalchandra Bagui, Howrah vs. Assessment Unit, Incometax Department

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

ITA 2064/KOL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 147Section 148Section 250

justice. IV. For that when the appellant disputed the alleged sale of immovable property which is the foundation of the alleged addition as short term capital gain, the CIT (Appeal) was not justified in law in dismissing the appeal on the ground of limitation which has caused serious miscarriage

DCIT, Central Circle-4(3), Kolkata vs. Golden Goenka Credit Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1799/KOL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Jan 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar (Accountant Member), Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey (Judicial Member)

Section 127Section 132(1)Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(iii)Section 68

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH KOLKATA Before Shri Rajesh

Pooja Babulal Jain, Mumbai vs. ITO 23(2)(6), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 7484/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Pooja Babulal Jain Ito,Ward-23(2)(6), Mumbai 31, Gulalwadi, 2Nd Floor, Kika Street Vs Piramal Chambers, Above Sanjay Enterprises, Mumbai - 400012. Mumbai, Maharashtra – 400004. [Pan No. Ahnpj3980E] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 148Section 234BSection 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68Section 69C

Learned CIT(A) has erred in concluding that the appellant earned exempt capital gains, whereas the appellant had, in fact, earned taxable Short-Term Capital Gains which were duly disclosed and offered to tax. 3) The Learned CIT(A) has erred in not considering the reliance placed by the appellant ... scrip. As per assessing officer, the assessee has shown exempt income of Rs. 2,03,497/-. However, the assessee has earned only a short term capital gain of Rs. 29,084/-. The short term capital gain is not exempt. During assessment the assessee furnished complete details of opening stock

Alka Ashok Jagtap, Kalyan vs. Income Tax Officer, Kalyan

ITA 7524/MUM/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jan 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla& Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokaralka Ashok Jagtap Income Tax Office C-304, Regency Avenue Rani Mansion Syndicate, Murbad Road, Vs. Kalyan, Kalyan Kalyan West, Thane- 421301, Kalyan Pan/Gir No. Ahtpj7760J (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Sunil Jain Revenue By Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing 22.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 27.01.2026

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

recorded that the assessee had disclosed in the return of income:  Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) of Rs. 6,47,054/-,  Short Term Capital Gain (STCG) of Rs. 72,596/-, and  income from other sources of Rs. 52,180/-. Thus, the amounts which were subjected to dispute were already disclosed ... return of income as Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) for A.Y. 2009–10. Similarly, the amount of Rs. 72,596/- was disclosed as Short Term Capital Gain and offered to tax. The AR submitted that in the reassessment order, the Assessing Officer had treated Rs. 6,36,866/- as unexplained

Ladderup Finance Limited, Mumbai vs. Circle 14(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 7404/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarladderup Finance Circle 14(1)(1), Limited Mumbai 1St Floor Hallmark Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Business Plaza, Mumbai-400 020 Gurunanak Hospital Road, Bandra (East), Mumbai- 400051 Pan/Gir No. Aaacl0882G (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rushabh Mehta Revenue By Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 27.01.2026

Section 10(34)Section 10(38)Section 111ASection 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)

total income of Rs. 73,59,060/-.The case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS for the following reasons: i. Large short term capital gains declared under section 111A, ii. Receipt of large value foreign remittance as reported in Form 15CA, and iii. Sale of property reported in Form ... proceedings completed by the learned Assessing Officer are beyond jurisdiction since the case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS having reasons “large short term capital gains declared u/s 111A, receipt of large value foreign remittance (Form 15CA) and Sale of property reported in Form 26QB

Diamond Tradecom Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 12(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 5850/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Diamond Tradecom Private Limited Ito,Ward-12(2)(1), Mumbai Shop No. 1, Shiv Ganga Chs Ltd., Vs Room No. 147B, Aayakar Bhavan, Ram Kuwar Thakur Road, M.K. Road, Dahisar (East), Mumbai – 400020. Mumbai – 400068. [Pan No. Aaccd8131A] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)(a)Section 151Section 250Section 250(6)Section 254(1)Section 69A

case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 34,18,000/- made by the Ld. AO as short term capital gain on sale of equity shares by assuming the cost of acquisition at Rs. 1,00,000/- 8. The appellant craves the leave

Fort Canning Credit Investments Pte. Ltd., Singapore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax (International Taxation) - 2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2104/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jan 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2022-23 Fort Canning Investments Assistant Commissioner Of Pte. Ltd. Income-Tax (International 260 Orchard Road, #14-02 Taxation) - 2(3)(1) Vs. The Heeren, Singapore, Mumbai Singapore – 238855 (Pan: Aaccf9284G) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2022-23 Fort Canning Credit Assistant Commissioner Of Investments Pte. Ltd. Income-Tax (International 260 Orchard Road #14-02 Taxation) - 2(3)(1) Vs. The Heeren, Singapore, Mumbai Singapore – 238855 (Pan: Aadcf7866R) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Dhanesh Bafna, Ms. Priyanka Agarwala, Ms.Hirali Desai, Ms. Nidhi Agarwal & Shri Yogesh Malpani, Cas Revenue : Shri Satya Pal Kumar, Cit Dr & Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 29.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.01.2026 Fort Canning Investments Pte. Ltd. & Fort Canning Credit Investments Pte. Ltd. Ay 2022-23

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh BafnaFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar, CIT DR and Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 234BSection 270A

Bharti shareholders in the ratio of 1:14. Assessee sold its rights entitlement on these shares held by it, giving rise to short term capital gains of Rs.3,62,26,442/- which was claimed as exempt under Article 13(5) under India-Singapore DTAA. Contrary to the treatment adopted ... value of rights shares is nothing more than the value carved out from the existing equity shares. It was thus, held that short term capital gains on sale of right entitlement would not be covered under Article 13(5), instead would be covered under Article 13(4B) of the India

Fort Canning Investments Pte. Ltd., Singapore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax (International Taxation) - 2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2103/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jan 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2022-23 Fort Canning Investments Assistant Commissioner Of Pte. Ltd. Income-Tax (International 260 Orchard Road, #14-02 Taxation) - 2(3)(1) Vs. The Heeren, Singapore, Mumbai Singapore – 238855 (Pan: Aaccf9284G) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2022-23 Fort Canning Credit Assistant Commissioner Of Investments Pte. Ltd. Income-Tax (International 260 Orchard Road #14-02 Taxation) - 2(3)(1) Vs. The Heeren, Singapore, Mumbai Singapore – 238855 (Pan: Aadcf7866R) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Dhanesh Bafna, Ms. Priyanka Agarwala, Ms.Hirali Desai, Ms. Nidhi Agarwal & Shri Yogesh Malpani, Cas Revenue : Shri Satya Pal Kumar, Cit Dr & Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 29.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.01.2026 Fort Canning Investments Pte. Ltd. & Fort Canning Credit Investments Pte. Ltd. Ay 2022-23

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh BafnaFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar, CIT DR and Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 234BSection 270A

Bharti shareholders in the ratio of 1:14. Assessee sold its rights entitlement on these shares held by it, giving rise to short term capital gains of Rs.3,62,26,442/- which was claimed as exempt under Article 13(5) under India-Singapore DTAA. Contrary to the treatment adopted ... value of rights shares is nothing more than the value carved out from the existing equity shares. It was thus, held that short term capital gains on sale of right entitlement would not be covered under Article 13(5), instead would be covered under Article 13(4B) of the India

Suresh Kumar Giddaluru, Bangalore vs. Assessment Unit ITO, Ward-3(2)(6), Surat

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

ITA 915/SRT/2025[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Surat23 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

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

Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 270A(10)

Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in making addition of Rs.78,91,200/- on account of computing short term capital gain by valuing 10 percent of the estimated cost of acquisition. Suresh Kumar Giddaluru Vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2018-19 - 2– 3. On the facts

Amruta Vivek Padalikar, Pune vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Kolhapur

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

ITA 1914/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Digambar SurwaseFor Respondent: Shri Vidya Ratna Kishore
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 234BSection 270ASection 50C

amount of Rs.1,66,94,500/- (Rs.1,25,69,500/- + Rs.41,25,000/-) to the total income of the assessee under the head „Short Term Capital Gain‟ and completed the assessment vide his order dated 15.04.2021 passed u/s 144 r.w.s. 143(3A) & 143(3B) of the Act. 3. Aggrieved ... appropriate relief. 4. On facts and circumstances of case and in law, CIT(A) erred in confirming addition of Rs.41,25,000/- as short-term capital gain even though no such capital asset is transferred by the appellant. The appellant prays for just, proper and appropriate relief. 3 ITA Nos.1913

Amruta Vivek Padalikar, Pune vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Kolhpaur

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

ITA 1913/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Digambar SurwaseFor Respondent: Shri Vidya Ratna Kishore
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 234BSection 270ASection 50C

amount of Rs.1,66,94,500/- (Rs.1,25,69,500/- + Rs.41,25,000/-) to the total income of the assessee under the head „Short Term Capital Gain‟ and completed the assessment vide his order dated 15.04.2021 passed u/s 144 r.w.s. 143(3A) & 143(3B) of the Act. 3. Aggrieved ... appropriate relief. 4. On facts and circumstances of case and in law, CIT(A) erred in confirming addition of Rs.41,25,000/- as short-term capital gain even though no such capital asset is transferred by the appellant. The appellant prays for just, proper and appropriate relief. 3 ITA Nos.1913

Manoj Kumar Chowrah, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1614/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

Section 69A

assessee to explain source for purchase of the property. Similarly, the A.O. further 4 Manoj Kumar Chowrah observed that, the assessee has computed short term capital gain from sale of property and also claimed cost of improvement for Rs. 1,00,000/- for which no supporting evidence has been furnished ... that, the assessee has claimed cost of improvement of Rs. 1,00,000/- against sale of property while 20 Manoj Kumar Chowrah computing short-term capital gain. The A.O. disallowed cost of improvement on the ground that, the assessee, except filing photograph of the property, could not file any bills

Suvodeep Pyne, Garia vs. ITO, Ward 63(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2252/KOL/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Jan 2026AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyita Nos.2251&2252/Kol/2025 Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2020-21 Suvodeep Pyne…………………..…..……….………….……….……….……Appellant Castle Apt 3B, 129, Garia Main Road, Kamdahari, Garia S.O, W.B-700084.. [Pan: Bbypp8655C] Vs. Ito, Ward-63(1), Kolkata……………………………..…….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Siddharth Pratim Dutta, Adv. & Sanjana Jha, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri S B Chakraborthy, Cit, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 04, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 21, 2026 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: Both The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee For The Assessment Years 2018-19 & 2020-21 Against Separate Orders Both Dated 09.08.2025 Of The Addl/Jcit(A) Kochi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Respectively. Since, The Issues Involved In Both The Appeals Are Common & Relate To The Same Assessee, Therefore, These Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order. Ita No.2251/Kol/2025 Is Taken As Lead Case For Narration Of Facts. Ita No.2251/Kol/2025 – Brief Facts Of The Case Are That In This 2. Case, The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income For The Fy-2017-18, Relevant To The A.Y- 2018-19 On 29.08.2018 By Disclosing Gross Total Income Of Rs. 68,85,998/- & Claimed Deduction A Sum Of Ra.7,455/-. During The Year Under Consideration, The Assessee Disclosed Income From Salary Of

Section 111ASection 112Section 154Section 250Section 90

shown 50,554/-. The assessee has Gross Liability of Rs.14,26,920/- as per sec. 90/90A of the Act and he also disclosed short term capital gain u/s 111A sum of Rs.37,29,653/- and attracted tax @15% a sum of Rs.5,59,448/-and long term capital

Suvodeep Pyne, Garia vs. ITO, Ward 63(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2251/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Jan 2026AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyita Nos.2251&2252/Kol/2025 Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2020-21 Suvodeep Pyne…………………..…..……….………….……….……….……Appellant Castle Apt 3B, 129, Garia Main Road, Kamdahari, Garia S.O, W.B-700084.. [Pan: Bbypp8655C] Vs. Ito, Ward-63(1), Kolkata……………………………..…….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Siddharth Pratim Dutta, Adv. & Sanjana Jha, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri S B Chakraborthy, Cit, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 04, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 21, 2026 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: Both The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee For The Assessment Years 2018-19 & 2020-21 Against Separate Orders Both Dated 09.08.2025 Of The Addl/Jcit(A) Kochi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Respectively. Since, The Issues Involved In Both The Appeals Are Common & Relate To The Same Assessee, Therefore, These Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order. Ita No.2251/Kol/2025 Is Taken As Lead Case For Narration Of Facts. Ita No.2251/Kol/2025 – Brief Facts Of The Case Are That In This 2. Case, The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income For The Fy-2017-18, Relevant To The A.Y- 2018-19 On 29.08.2018 By Disclosing Gross Total Income Of Rs. 68,85,998/- & Claimed Deduction A Sum Of Ra.7,455/-. During The Year Under Consideration, The Assessee Disclosed Income From Salary Of

Section 111ASection 112Section 154Section 250Section 90

shown 50,554/-. The assessee has Gross Liability of Rs.14,26,920/- as per sec. 90/90A of the Act and he also disclosed short term capital gain u/s 111A sum of Rs.37,29,653/- and attracted tax @15% a sum of Rs.5,59,448/-and long term capital

Diamond Tradecom Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 12(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5805/MUM/2025[A.Y. 2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jan 2026

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prabhash Shankardiamond Tradecom V/S. Income Tax Officer, Ward – Private Limited बनाम 12(2)(1), Room No. 147B, Shop No.1, Shiv Ganga Chs Aayakar Bhavan,M.K. Road, Ltd., Ram Kuwar Thakur Mumbai – 400020, Road, Dahisar (East), Maharashtra Mumbai – 400 068, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaccd8131A Appellant/अपीलाथी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Subhash Chhajed,ARFor Respondent: Shri Umashankar Prasad, (CIT DR)
Section 147Section 148Section 149(1)(b)Section 151Section 250Section 250(6)Section 69Section 69A

case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 24,01,000/-made by the Ld. AO as short term capital gain on sale of equity shares. 3. At the outset,it was noticed that the instant appeal is delayed by 140 days.In this regard

Smt. Shree Jain, Mumbai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle -5(2), Mumbai

In the result, we hold that

ITA 2565/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Bijayananda Prusethsmt. Shree Jain, 17/1, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Anurag Ali Asker Rod, Off. Tax, Central Circle-5(2), Mumbai. Chunningham Road, 1/24, Room No.634, Aayakar Bhawan, Marsh Bangalore-560052. Karve Road, Churchgate, Mumbai- 400020. Pan/Gir No:Aarpj4573A (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)

erred in confirming the addition of 4,56,13,937/-made by the AO to the income of the Appellant on account of Short term capital gains on the basis of invalid Sale Deed dated 7-8-2015 entered between 1 ITA No.2565/MUM/2025/AY 2016-17 Smt. Shree Jain ... accept the explanation of the assessee and observed that she had stated many things to avoid short-term capital gain on sale of the impugned land. The AO also observed that in the sale deed dated 07.08.2015, the assessee has acknowledged sale consideration of Rs.8.96 crore as full and final

Mr. Dollar Chunilal Modi, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 42(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 7189/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai ()**

Section 139Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 50Section 54F

erred in law and on facts in upholding an addition of Rs.25,59,170-made by the Assessing Officer as Short term capital gains arising on assets subjected to Section 50 was not allowed for deduction u/s 54F on the grounds that the assessee had failed to furnish the deduction ... block of assets and held that the gains arising from the sale of the asset were required to be taxed as short-term capital gains, on the ground that the block of assets had ceased to exist. The Ld.AO, therefore, computed the short-term capital gain on the sale

Rama Sivaraman, Mumbai vs. AO Ward 3(2), Thane

ITA 6947/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Mr. Rajeev N. LFor Respondent: Shri Annavaram Kosuri
Section 147

aforesaid submissions on account of lack of supporting evidence and therefore, proceeded to assessee the entire sale consideration of INR.63,50,000/- as Short Term Capital Gain in the hands of the Assessee vide Assessment Order, dated 02/09/2021, passed under Section 147 of the Act 5. Being aggrieved the Assessee ... that totality of the prevailing facts and circumstances, we deem it appropriate and in the interest of justice set aside the addition of short term capital gains of INR.63,50,000/- made in the hands of the Assessee with the directions to the Assessing Officer to adjudicate the issue afresh

Rama Sivaraman, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 3(2), Mumbai

ITA 6946/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Mr. Rajeev N. LFor Respondent: Shri Annavaram Kosuri
Section 147

aforesaid submissions on account of lack of supporting evidence and therefore, proceeded to assessee the entire sale consideration of INR.63,50,000/- as Short Term Capital Gain in the hands of the Assessee vide Assessment Order, dated 02/09/2021, passed under Section 147 of the Act 5. Being aggrieved the Assessee ... that totality of the prevailing facts and circumstances, we deem it appropriate and in the interest of justice set aside the addition of short term capital gains of INR.63,50,000/- made in the hands of the Assessee with the directions to the Assessing Officer to adjudicate the issue afresh

Zany Share Trading Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, WD-8(3)(4), Mumbai

Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 4991/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jan 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

erred in sustaining the addition u/s.68 of Short term capital loss on shares of Purti Sakhar Karkhana Ltd of Rs.70,84,000/- and Short term Capital gain on shares of Sperm Tracom Put Ltd of Rs.70,84,000/-; L.A. No. 4991/Mum/2025 3.0 The Ld. CIT(A), before confirming the addition ... sale of shares as non-genuine, erred in sustaining the separate addition u/s.68 of short term capital loss of Rs.70,84,000/- and short term capital gain of Rs.70,84,000/- and ought to have estimated the income @ 2% on non- genuine short term capital gain/loss. The appellant craves leave