“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

Jane Street Asia Capital Ltd, Mumbai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Int Tax Circle 3(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3329/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh Bafna a/w HardikFor Respondent: Shri Anil Sant, Sr. DR

Section 111ASection 115ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 153Section 234BSection 270ASection 70(2)

allowing set-off of short-term capital loss (STCL) under section 111A read with section 115AD of the Act (taxable at 15%) against short-term capital gains ('STCG) under section 115AD of the Act (taxable at 30%). In doing so, the Ld. AO has erred in: a. holding that short ... covered under section 111A read with section 115AD of the Act (subject to tax rate of 15%) cannot be set-off against short-term capital gains of AY 2020-21 taxable under section 115AD of the Act (subject to tax rate of 30%). b. not appreciating the fact that section

Ramsing Himmatsing Rajput, Nashik vs. ITO, Ward 2(1), Nashik

ITA 601/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 May 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.601/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Ramsing Himmatsing Vs. Ito, Ward-2(1), Nashik. Rajput, Plot No.17, Usha Bunglow, Near Seven Heven Hotel, Behind Lotus House, Chetna Nagar, Nashik- 422009. Pan : Adrpr2780A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sanket Joshi Revenue By : Shri Manoj Tripathi Date Of Hearing : 02.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.05.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 19.02.2024 Passed By Ld Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1] The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition U/S 50C Of Rs. 14,25,000 By Taxing The Difference Between Govt. Valuation Of Rs.22,25,000 & Actual Sale Consideration Of Rs.8,00,000 Without Appreciating That The Impugned Land Located Near River Bank Was Vulnerable To Floods, It Was Situated Near Cremation

For Appellant: Shri Sanket JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Tripathi

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 50C

gain of Rs.14,25,000/-, being difference of stamp duty value Rs.22,25,000/- & the actual sale consideration of Rs.8,00,000/-as “Short Term Capital Gains”. 4. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, who vide impugned order Dated 19-02-2024 partly allowed ... stamp duty purposes per section 50C (2) and that the AO has erred in not considering cost of land sold while calculating short term capital gain. 6.1 The AO in the assessment order noted that the assessee had sold an immovable property at Rs. 800000/- whose guideline value

Muniswamy Venkataswamy, Bangalore vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-3(3)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 678/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Padmanabhan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, D.R

Section 144Section 147Section 250Section 272(1)(d)

Commissioner (Appeals) has erred by not following the Principles of Natural Justice. 6) The Learned Assessing Officer erroneously considered the entire amount as Short Term Capital Gains without any application of mind. 7) The Learned Assessing Officer did not give deduction to cost of improvement and other structural activities

General Electric International Inc., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, International Taxation Circle 2(3)(2), Mumbai

ITA 3498/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh BafnaFor Respondent: Shri Veerbhandra Mahajan

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

only thing that assessee did was claiming a particular income (Capital Gain) under different head namely under long term capital gains as against short term capital gains. Assessee claims that it was done under bona fide belief that the asset was a long term asset as it was held ... more than three years. Just because assessee was a director in some companies cannot be a reason to state that claiming this short term capital gain as long term capital gain was to avoid payment of any tax. In any event as noted earlier the entire short term capital gain

Income Tax Officer-42(3)(4), Mumbai, Bkc vs. Suresh Chandra Kachhara, Kandivali

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

ITA 3702/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Vikas Awasthyassessment Year :2012-13. Income Tax Officer -42(3)(4), Kautilya Bhavan, Room No.735, 7Th Floor, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E),Mumbai – 400 051 ---- Appellant Vs. Suresh Chandra Kachhara, B-601-602, Bhoomi Arcade, Opp. Children’S A Academy School, Ashok Nagar, Kandivali, Mumbai – 400 101 Pan: Aafpk-2420-D --- Respondent

For Appellant: Shri G.L.KachharaFor Respondent: Shri Suresh D. Gaikwad, Sr.AR

Section 147Section 68

purchased the said shares for Rs.3,38,384/-. Since the said shares were held for less than 12 months, the assessee declared short term capital gain of Rs.47,241/- on sale of those shares. 3. The AO noticed that the shares of M/s Exelon Infrastructure Ltd was identified ... decision rendered by the co-ordinate bench in the case of Dinesh Singh Chhajed (ITA No.189/Mum/2022 dated31-01-2023), wherein also the short term capital gains declared by that assessee was directed to be accepted. 7. We heard the parties and perused the record. We notice that

Income-Tax Officer, Ahmedabad vs. Jhaveri Sandeep Bipinchandra (HUF), Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 805/AHD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra R. Kambleassessment Year : 2016-17 Jhaveri Sandeep Income Tax Officer, Vs. Bipinchandra (Huf), Ward-5(3)(1), 21, Crest Nutan Laxmi Soc., Ahmedabad 9Th Road, Jvpd Scheme, Juhu, Mumbai, Maharashtra 400049 Pan : Aachj 0855 Q अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" "" "" यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" Assessee By : Shri Deepak Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 15.02.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 10.05.2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Annapurna Guptapresent Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue Against Order Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Pune-12 [Hereinafter Referred To As "Cit(A)" For Short] Dated 24.08.2023 Passed Under Section 250(6) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act" For Short], For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17. 2. Ground Of Appeal No.1 Raised By The Department Reads As Under:- “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Treating The Income Of Rs. 54,49,539/- As Short Term Capital Gain Instead Of Business Income.” 3. The Issue Raised In The Above Ground Relates To The Short Term Capital Gain Returned By The Assessee, On The Transactions Of Dealing In Shares, As Ito Vs Jhaveri Sandeep Bipinchandra Huf Ay : 2016-17 2

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr DR

Section 250(6)

circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in treating the income of Rs. 54,49,539/- as Short Term Capital Gain instead of business income.” 3. The issue raised in the above ground relates to the Short Term Capital Gain returned by the assessee ... Sandeep Bipinchandra HUF AY : 2016-17 2 business income of the assessee. The assessee is involved in share trading activity and had returned Short Term Capital Gain on the same amounting to Rs.65,49,765/-. The Assessing Officer, however, found that, in the preceding year

Indira Pradeep Vardavat, Thane vs. ACIT, Circle 1, Thane

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

ITA 432/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 48Section 54

erred in upholding the computation of capital gains made by ld AO arising on transfer of flat no.901, Florica, Cosmos Orchid, Thane as short term capital gain at Rs.46,73,610/-, as against long term capital gains offered to 3 Indira Pradeep Vardavat tax by the appellant, not appreciating

Nawal Basudeo Agarwal, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi

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

ITA 4419/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Ms Padmavathy S

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 68

found that the assessee has disclosed the income from salary of Rs. 2,97,500, loss from business of Rs. 22,39,289/-,short term capital gains on on sale of land of Rs.3,05,084/- and income from other sources of Rs. 4,822/-. Further the assessee has claimed

Income Tax Officer, Mumbai vs. Barindra Overseas Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the revenue for AY 2010-11 and 2011-12 are dismissed

ITA 2606/MUM/2023[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 May 2024AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Shri Laxmi Kant , Sr. DR

Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 48

that the AO failed to disallow the deduction claimed towards interest expenses on loans borrowed against Short Term Capital Gains (STCG) to the tune of Rs. 1,12,98,722/- and Rs. 22,49,952/- respectively. For AY 2010-11 it was also held that the AO failed

Income Tax Officer, Mumbai vs. Barindra Overseas Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the revenue for AY 2010-11 and 2011-12 are dismissed

ITA 2605/MUM/2023[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 May 2024AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Shri Laxmi Kant , Sr. DR

Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 48

Sachin Kanodia, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 42(2), New Delhi

Appeal are dismissed

ITA 9504/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 May 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

Section 142(2)Section 143(2)Section 2Section 68Section 69C

brother has also declared the purchase and sale of shares as bogus but brought to tax, gains arising from sale of shares as short term capital gains. This in our considered view, is also not of help as the Revenue in the instant case has come to the conclusive finding ... High Court has held as under- "The assessee incurred capital loss on account of sale of gold jewellery and also had short- term capital gain of almost equal amount. The AO observed that short-term gain was not genuine inasmuch as the assessee had purchased 45,000 shares

M/S. Tourism Finance Corporation of India Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 6130/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 May 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: the time of hearing."

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 36(1)(viia)

submitted that the investments were bought and sold during the year only. The income in respect of the same has been offered as short term capital gain and offered for tax. Since no exemption has been claimed for such income, section 14A read with rule 8D does not apply." Tourism

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1 Thane, Thane vs. Shree Mahaveer Associates, Thane

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3934/MUM/2023[2013]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 May 2024

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon'Bledcit - Circle-1 V. Shree Mahaveer Associates Block No 6, 2Nd Floor Room No. 22, B Wing Sandeep Apartment 6Th Floor, Ashar It Park Ram Ganesh Gadkari Road Wagle Industrial Area, Thane (W) Opp Namaskar Hotel, Thane (W) Maharashtra - 400604 Thane, Maharashtra-400602 Pan: Abdfs9024N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi Department Represented By : Shri Paresh Deshpande

Section 148

grievance of the revenue is that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of ₹.6,59,12,000/- on account of short term capital gain. 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that, pursuant to the AIR information the Assessing Officer came to know that

Harshad Mansukhlal Shah., Mumbai vs. ACIT, Cir-29, Kolkata.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 948/KOL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 May 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 948/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Harshad Mansukhlal Shah Acit, Circle-29, Kolkata 1208, C2 Wing Sheetal Nath Vs Gordia Nagar, Kurla Mumbai - 700077 [Pan : Alops0164Q] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Manish Tiwari, Fca 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: 08/05/2024 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. 10/12/2021, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Appeal Is Time Barred By 577 Days. On The Last Date Of Hearing I.E., 21/03/2024, The Bench After Considering The Condonation Application & Other Facts & Circumstances Of The Case Has Condoned The Delay In Filing Of The Instant Appeal Vide Its Order Dt. 21/03/2024, Which Forms Part Of The Record. Thus, We Proceed To Adjudicate The Appeal On Merits. 3. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Is Erred In Accepting The View Of The Ao That The Disclosed Short-Term Capital Gain Of Rs. 18,67,181/- As Business Income Of Rs. 18,67,181/-.

For Appellant: Shri Manish Tiwari, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Swapan Kumar Bera, JCIT, Sr. D/R

Section 112Section 143(3)Section 250

circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) is erred in accepting the view of the AO that the disclosed short-term capital gain of Rs. 18,67,181/- as business income of Rs. 18,67,181/-. 2 I.T.A. No. 948/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Harshad Mansukhlal Shah That ... appellate proceedings or in course of appellate proceedings.” 4. Facts in brief are that the assessee is a senior citizen earning income from short terms capital gain, F&O transactions etc.. Return of income for Assessment Year 2015-16 furnished on 17/08/2015 declaring income of Rs.37,30,090/-. After

Arvind Kumar Taneja (HUF), New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-52(4), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 842/DEL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Shreyansh Kushwaha, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Kanv Bali, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 139Section 139(1)Section 142Section 148Section 153Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

Income Tax Act, 1961 and information was not called for from the share-broker, the revised computation of income declaring short term capital gain could not be received. The assessee offered the income of Rs. 2,28,923/- for taxation only when he was confronted." 8. Record before us shows ... purchase of each and every shares so to buy peace with the department the same is voluntarily offered to be taxed as Short Term capital gains earned on Equity Shares…..” 11. The above position is evident from the assessment order itself, wherein it is recorded in para 4 as below

Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(4), Mumbai., Pratishtha Bhavan vs. Arun Subrahmanyam, Mumbai, Maharashtra

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

ITA 2694/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha (SR.DR)

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 270A

gesture, paid the tax on its transaction amount of Rs.1,05,28,830/- for long term capital gain and Rs.12,29,731/- for short term capital gain. The revised computation was duly filed which is also enclosed in the assessee‟s paper book page 2. The Ld.AR further relied

Maheshwari Megaventures Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Circle-16(2), Hyd, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1291/HYD/2016[2009-10]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad03 May 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri K.C. Devdas, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Pranav, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 50C

investment in the plot was not towards stock in trade and, therefore, any gain on sale of such property would be taxed as short term capital gain. 19. Neither of these cases are similar in facts to the case of the assessee. On the other hand, the conversion

Event Developers Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 5(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 574/KOL/2022[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 May 2024AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)

assessee. The AO required the assessee to furnish evidences in support of the genuineness of its claim of long term capital gain and Short term capital gain. However the assessee did not file any documents and finally the amount was added to the income of the assessee in the assessment

Arjun Manoj Purohit, Thane vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Thane

In the result, both the appeals of the assesse are allowed

ITA 3655/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 May 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3654/Mum/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3655/Mum/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) बनाम/ Arjun Manoj Purohit Ito, Ward-2(1) Room No. 25B, 6Th Arjun Niwas Padmavati Vs. Nagar, 150 Feet Road Floor, Asher It Park, Shyander (W), Thane- Road No. 16Z, Wagle 401105. Industrial Estate, Thane- 400604. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Anxpp8321K (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri Rakesh Joshi Revenue By: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha (Sr. Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 03/04/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 02/05/2024 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha (Sr. DR)

Section 133(6)Section 148Section 68

copy of return of income along with computation of income, Balance-Sheet, P & L Account, Audit Report, details of bank accounts, details of short term capital gains on sale of land/DRC, copy of confirmation from M/s. Shipra Fabrics Pvt Ltd and M/s. Lunkad Textile Pvt. Ltd. After acknowledging receipt ... assessee is an individual, who is engaged in construction business, and has shown income from construction as well as rental income, commission/brokerage and short term capital gain from sale of land. The assessee had filed return of income showing total income of Rs.1,12,28,840/- which was processed

Arjun Manoj Purohit, Thane vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Thane

In the result, both the appeals of the assesse are allowed

ITA 3654/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 May 2024AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha (Sr. DR)

Section 133(6)Section 148Section 68