← 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

Kandasamy Mani, Salem vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Salem

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

ITA 365/CHNY/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.365/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 Kandasamy Mani, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 94/50, Rasi Tex, Mariamman Koil Ward 1(1), Street, Ponnammapet, Salem. Salem 636 001. [Pan: Alvpm4675P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate, Erode ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 30.05.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 05.06.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Against The Order Dated 29.12.2023 Passed By The Addl/Jcit(A), Thane For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. Ground Nos. 1, 3 & 4 Are General In Nature & Requires No Adjudication. 3. Ground No. 2 Is Not Pressed. 4. Ground Nos. 5 To 8 Raised By The Assessee In Challenging The Action Of First Appellate Authority In Confirming The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer On Account Of Land Development Expenses.

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate, ErodeFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT

Officer on account of land development expenses. 2 I.T.A. No.365/Chny/24 5. The ld. AR Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate submits that the assessee shown short term capital gains of ₹.30,86,167/- after deducting ₹.10,44,755/- as land development expenditure. The Assessing Officer asked the assessee to furnish the details

Mukhundhan Gopalan, Trichy vs. ACIT Circle 1(1), Trichy

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

ITA 504/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 504/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Mukhundhan Gopalan, The Asst. Commissioner Of B-901, Trichy Rich 104, Vs. Income Tax, Salai Road, Woraiyur Bazaar, Circle 1(1), Trichy – 620 003. Trichy. Pan: Aagpm 1974P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri M. Murali, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05.06.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05.06.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Revision Order Passed By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Madurai – 1 In Order No. Itba/Rev/F/Rev5/2022-23/1050429409 (1) Dated 06.03.2023. The Assessment Was Framed By The Additional/ Joint/Deputy/Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax/Income-Tax Officer, National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi For The Assessment Year 2018-19 U/S.143(3) R.W.S.143(3A) & 143(3B) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’) Vide Order Dated 19.10.2020. 2. The Only Issue In This Appeal Of Assessee Is Against The Revision Order Passed By The Pcit U/S.263 Of The Act Revising The Assessment Completed By Ao U/S.143(3) Of The Act Dated 19.10.2020 Without Making Enquiry In Regard To Expenses Relatable To Exempt Income U/S.14A R.W.Rule 8D(2)(Ii) Of The Income Tax Rules, 1962 (Hereinafter The ‘Rules’). For This, Assessee Has Raised Many Grounds Which Are Argumentative & Exhaustive & Hence, Need Not Be Reproduced.

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. Murali, CIT
Section 111ASection 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

following, (i) High income reported in the return and no entry in Schedule Assets and Liabilities of return of income and (ii) Large short term capital gains declared u/s 111A. Subsequently, the PCIT issued show-cause notice dated 14.02.2023 requiring the assessee as to why the expenses relatable to exempt

Ifb Automotive Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir. 12(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 212/KOL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 212/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Ifb Automotive Private Limited Deputy Commissioner Of Income Plot No. Ind-V, Sector-1 Vs Tax, Circle - 12(1), Kolkata East Kolkata Township Kasba Industrial Estate Kolkata - 700107 [Pan : Aabci2766H] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Somnath Ghosh, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Swapan Kumar Bera, Jcit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17/04/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 04/06/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 12/12/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. Under The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Income Tax Department, Delhi Has Erred In Law As Well As In Facts In Confirming The Disallowance & Addition Made By The Ld. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-12(L), Kolkata (Assessing Officer) On Account Of Profit On Sale Of Fixed Assets Of Rs. 41,61,190/- Ignoring The Provisions Under Section 50 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961. 2. Under The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Law As Well As In Facts In Confirming The Disallowance & Addition Made By The Ld. Assessing Officer On Account Of 2

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Swapan Kumar Bera, JCIT, Sr. D/R
Section 143(2)Section 250Section 50

whether they fall under the block of assets and whether the block ceases to exist. (iii) Correctness of the claim of short term capital gain from sale of depreciable asset of Rs.63,61,190/- along with verifying the block of asset in which such assets fall or not. 6 I.T.A

Snehasish Bhaumik, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir. 50(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1429/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 1429/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Snehasish Bhaumik Asstt. Commissioner Of Income A-3/2, Labony Estate Vs Tax, Circle – 50(1), Kolkata Salt Lake, Bidhannagar North Kolkata - 700064 [Pan : Adypb8516H] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Advocate Revenue By : Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, Jcit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 07/03/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 04/06/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 31/10/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Sole Issue Raised In This Appeal Is About The Correctness Of The Amount Of Capital Gain Arising From Sale Of Flat Owned By The Assessee. 3. Facts In Brief Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Filed Its Return Of Income For Assessment Year 2014-15 On 30/09/2014 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.10,40,570/- & The Same Included Income From Capital Gain At Rs.4,12,278/-. Thereafter, The Assessment Was Completed U/S 143(3) Of The Act On 26/10/2016 & The Assessment Records Were The Subject Matter Before The Ld. Pr. Cit In The Proceedings U/S 263 Of The Act & After Culmination Of The Revisionary Proceedings, Directions Were Given To The Ld. Assessing Officer By The Ld. Pr. Cit To Pass A Fresh

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, JCIT, Sr. D/R
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263

purchase as 15/09/2009 but the ld. Assessing Officer took the basis of the registered deed dt. 12/12/2011 and treated the capital gain as short term capital gain. Ld. Assessing Officer observed that the assessee considered the stamp duty value as on the date of registration i.e., 12/12/2011 at Rs.41 ... Rs.23,27,257/-. Though the assessee filed various details but the ld. Assessing Officer calculated the capital gain from sale of flat as short term capital gain at Rs.30,36,003/- as against the long term capital gain of Rs.4,12,278/- declared by the assessee in the income

Renault Nissan Automotive India Private Limited, Kancheepuram vs. DCIT, Corpoate Circle-5(3), Chennai

The appeal stand partly allowed

ITA 206/CHNY/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jun 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.206/Chny/2018 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2010-11) M/S.Renault Nissan Automotive India Dcit Private Limited Company Circle-V(3), बनाम Plot No.1, Sipcot Industrial Park, Chennai. / Vs. Oragadam, Mattur Post, Sriperumbudur-602 015. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Aadcr-7965-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri N.V.Balaji (Advocate)-Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri V.Nandakumar (Cit) -Ld.Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25-04-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03-06-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri N.V.Balaji (Advocate)-Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri V.Nandakumar (CIT) -Ld.DR
Section 143(3)Section 250

employee. 4.3 Itis humbly submitted that the disallowance be deleted and claim be permitted. 5. Additions on account of short term capital gains INR 1,11,31,343 5.1 The learned CIT(A) has erred in law by not considering FIFO method adopted by the assessee to determine the gains ... Disallowance of expenditure incurred during set-up of business; (ii) Depreciation Disallowance; (iii) Disallowance u/s 43B; (iv) Addition on account of Short-Term Capital Gains. 2. The Ld. AR advanced arguments and placed on record issue-wise chart. Reliance has been placed on various judicial decisions

The ACIT, Circle-5, Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Jubilee Tradelink Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 806/AHD/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 May 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalिनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2008-09 Vs. M/S. Jubilee Tradelink Pvt. Ltd., The Acit, 9B, Bansidhar Apartments, Circle-5, Gyanganga Classes, Ahmedabad Jawaharnagar, Vasna, Ahmedabad Pan : Aabcj 0614 P अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" "" "" यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" Assessee By : Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate & Shri Parin Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Ravindra, Sr Dr तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08.05.2024 सुनवाई क" क" तारीख सुनवाई सुनवाई सुनवाई क" क" तारीख तारीख घोषणा क" क" तारीख तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29.05.2024 घोषणा घोषणा घोषणा क" क" तारीख तारीख आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Siddhartha Nautiyal: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Department Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-9, Ahmedabad [Hereinafter Referred To As "Cit(A)" For Short] Dated 05.01.2016, Passed Under Section 250(6) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act" For Short], For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2008-09. 2. The Department Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Holding The Reassessment Proceedings As Void. 2. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts By Not Appreciating That The Assessment Was Reopened Within Four Years From The Relevant Assessment Year & The Issue Decided In Reassessment Proceedings Was Not Dealt With During Original Assessment Proceedings..

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Ravindra, Sr DR
Section 147Section 250(6)

erred in law and on facts in directing to allow the assessee short term capital loss of Rs.30,10,000/- instead of short term capital gain of Rs.44,98,600/- calculated by the AO. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts by not appreciating that ... Assessing Officer disallowed the short-term capital loss of ₹30, 10,000/– and confirmed addition of ₹44,98,600/– on account of short-term capital gains. 4. Before Ld. CIT(A), the assessee objected to initiation of reassessment proceedings on the assessee under Section 147 of the Act. The main