“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

Dhan Bahadur Gagan Chand, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) NFAC, Delhi, Mumbai

ITA 3462/MUM/2023[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 May 2024AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

For Appellant: Shri. Bhadresh DoshiFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair

Section 250Section 50C

duty of ₹5,00,000/- along with registration fee of ₹30,000/- was paid for this transaction by the appellant assessee, hence, added short-term capital gain of *1,45,60,000/- in his total income for the relevant AY 2016-17. On being aggrieved by the impugned order ... prejudice, it may please be held that the provisions of Section 50C are not applicable to the facts of the case and the short-term capital gains arising should be computed only with regard to the actual consideration received.” 4. Pursuant to the notice, the Ld. Departmental Representative [DR] appeared

Sh. Ramnarayan Meena, Tonk vs. ITO, Ward-Tonk, Tonk

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

ITA 259/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar (CIT) a

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144(1)(b)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 151Section 69

Nagar Grah Nirman Sarkari Samiti Ltd vide sale agreement dt. 21.06.2016 for Rs. 10,77,21,000/- (PB 31-36). Accordingly assessee earned short term capital gain of Rs. 1,72,943/- (PB 40). 4. The AO on the basis of information that assessee has purchased land for Rs.10

Anil Chothmal Patodia HUF, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC)- Delhi, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed on legal grounds

ITA 4060/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

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

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69

stocks in which investigation was carried out and found that these shares were used for accommodation entries for bogus long term capital gain / short term capital gain and short term capital loss and assessee could not furnish the payment proof and corresponding banking entries and accordingly, he treated the amount

Sunita Motilal Sinha, Mumbai vs. ITO 25(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3662/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang, Hon’Ble& Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Mani JainFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Singh

Section 10(38)Section 131Section 133(6)Section 68Section 69C

Pawan Purohit. Simply because in the sham transactions bank a/c were opened with HDFC Bank and the appellant has also received short term capital gain in his account with HDFC Bank does not establish that the transaction made by the appellant were non-genuine. Considering all these facts the share ... transactions made through Shri P K Agarwal cannot be held as non-genuine. Consequently denying the claim of short term capital gain made by the appellant before the AO is not approved. The AO is, therefore, directed to accept claim of short term capital gain as shown by the appellant

Shama Ajay Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The CIT(It & Tp), Ahmedabad

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 132/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarिनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shama Ajay Patel, Vs. 2, Chandroday Society, The Cit(It & Tp), Opp. Golden Triangle, Sp Ahmedabad Stadium Road, Navjivan Post, Ahmedabad-380014 Pan : Alxpp 5273 E अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" "" "" यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" Assessee By : Shri Sunil Talati, Ar Revenue By : Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01.02.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 26.04.2024 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Annapurna Gupta: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (It & Tp), Ahmedabad [Hereinafter Referred To As Ld. "Cit(It & Tp)" For Short] Dated 08.02.2023, In Exercise Of His Revisionary Powers Under Section 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”], For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Challenging The Impugned Order Of The Ld. Cit (It & Tp) Reads As Under:- “1. The Ld. Cit Has Erred In Passing Order U/S 263 Without Jurisdiction & Appropriate Powers Available Under The Act. It Is Submitted That The Order Passed U/S. 263 Is Bad In Law As A.O. Has Neither Committed Any Error Nor It Is Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue. It Be Held Now.

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Talati, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 147Section 263

reply was filed by the assessee stating that the transaction was genuine, having been incurred through her NRE account and on which short term capital gain had been earned by the assessee subjected to tax @ 15.45%. The ld. CIT (IT & TP), however, was not convinced with the reply ... relation to the same considering the information available with him and the same had caused prejudice to the Revenue since the impugned short term capital gain had been taxed @ 15% only instead of 30% which was an 5 Shama Ajay Patel Vs. CIT(IT&TP) AY : 2017-18 applicable

Ravi Gopal Trivedy, Mumbai vs. National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi

ITA 4062/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Apr 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am Ravi Gopal Trivedy 402, Sheetal, A Wing, Lokhandwala Complex, Andheri (West), Mumbai-400053 Pan : Abсрт1927А Ι.Τ.Α. No. 4062/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) Vs. National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi Appellant) Respondent) Appellant/Assessee By Dr. K. Shivaram A/W Mr. Shashi Bekal, Ca Revenue/Respondent By Shri R.R. Makwana, Jcit Date Of Hearing 23.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 24.04.2024 Order Per Padmavathy S, Am: This Appeal Is Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [For Short 'The Cit(A)] Dated 16.10.2023 For The Ay 2013-14. The Assessee Raised The Following Revised Grounds: 2

Section 143(1)Section 148

opportunity to the appellant to respond, hence the order is bad in law. 2. Impugned addition of Rs. 9,09,787/- a short term capital gain is bad in law. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. NFAC has erred in making ... addition of Rs. 9,09,787/- as short term capital gain. 2.1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. NFAC has erred in making an addition of Rs. 9,09,787/- as short term capital gain without providing the details of the said

Chaudhary Stone Crusher, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 3(1), Saharanpur

In the result of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2314/DEL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Apr 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri M. Balaganeshchaudhary Stone Crusher, Vs. Ito, C/O. Sh. C. S. Anand, Ward-3(1), Advocate, 104, Pankaj Saharanpur, Tower, 10, L. S. C. Savita Vihar, Delhi-92 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aagfc5621D Assessee By : Shri C. S. Anand, Adv Revenue By : Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 14/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 24/04/2024

For Appellant: Shri C. S. Anand, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 50C

served on the appellant. 5. 5. That on the peculiar facts of the case and in law, no addition under the head Short Term Capital Gains could have been made in the hands of the appellant because the appellant had neither made investment in purchase of the assets nor received ... bringing the sale consideration of land and building and machinery at ₹91,74,000/- as income of the assessee and determining the short-term capital gains thereon. In fact, the ld AO had issued show cause notice dated 04.12.2018 to this effect. In response to the said show cause notice

ITO, Ward-30(4), New Delhi vs. Rashmi Rajiv Mehta, Gurgaon

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and cross objection is dismissed as not pressed

ITA 4399/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Apr 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarasstt. Year: 2011-12 Ito, Ward-30(4), Vs. Rashmi Rajiv Mehta New Delhi E-52, Raheja Atlantis, Sector – 31, Nh-8, Gurgaon Haryana Pin 122002 Pan Akspm6239M (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No. 181/Del/2018 Arising Out Of Ita 4399/Del/2018 Asstt. Year 2011-12 Rashmi Rajiv Mehta Vs. Ito, Ward-30(4), E-52, Raheja New Delhi Atlantis, Sector – 31, Nh-8, Gurgaon Haryana Pin 122002 Pan Akspm6239M (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvocatFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

information. In response to notice under section 148 assessee filed her return declaring total income of Rs. 5,15,540/- comprising of short term capital gain of Rs. 2,75,494/- and interest income of Rs. 2,40,050/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Learned AO asked

Mr.P.C.Jose, Cochin vs. DCIT, Cochin

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed, and the Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 54/COCH/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Apr 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasp.C. Jose Deputy Commissioner Of Prop. Brothers Agencies Income Tax, Circle-2(1) Jews Street Vs. Kochi Ernakulam 682031 [Pan: Abbpj8250F] (Appellant) (Respondent) Deputy Commissioner Of P.C. Jose Income Tax, Circle-2(1) Prop. Brothers Agencies Kochi Vs. Jews Street Ernakulam 682031 [Pan: Abbpj8250F] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: ----- None -----For Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)

Jose Without prejudice, though, the same, claimed exempt on the basis of the subject land being agricultural, was also assessed as short-term capital gain (STCG), i.e., on protective basis (para 2.6). 5.2 In the first appeal, the ld. CIT(A) allowed part relief to the assessee holding ... agricultural land and hence the profit arising from the transfer of such properties are eligible to be excluded from the computation of short term capital gains. Out of the land sold during the year, the total extent of properties covered by certificate from the revenue authorities as paddy field

Chinnaraj Gurudhandapani, Krishnigiri vs. ACIT, Circle-1 Hosur, Hosur

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 105/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.105/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Chinnaraj Gurudhandapani Acit No.55/11, Jollankottai Andiyur Circle-1 बनाम/ Vs. Uthangarai, Krishnagiri Hosur. Tamil Nadu – 635 307. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Bcypg-5322-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : None " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar (Jcit)-Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16-04-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 16-04-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar (JCIT)-Ld. Sr. DR

Section 69A

even before learned first appellate authority. 2. From case records, it emerges that Ld. Assessing Officer made addition u/s 69A and addition of Short Term Capital Gains. The assessee did not appear during assessment proceedings. Upon further appeal, the position remained the same and the assessee did not appear before

Rohit Kumar Yadav, Indore vs. Income Tax Officer 5(5), Indore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 442/IND/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore15 Apr 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanirohit Kumar Yadav Ito 5(5) Hig-Dx-2Manishmati Arvind Indore Vihar, Mahishmati Vs. Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaupy5015 F Assessee By Shri Pankaj Shah & Soumya Bumb Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 09.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 15.04.2024

Section 50C

only grievance of the assessee is against the protective addition made by the AO in the hands of the assessee on account of short term capital gain arising from transfer of land jointly owned by the assessee and his mother. He has further submitted that the assessee has no objection ... extent of the assessment of 50% of the short term capital gain being the share of the Page 2 of 9 ITANo.442/Ind/2023 Rohit Kumar Yadav assessee however, the AO has also made an addition of the 50% shares of the mother of the assessee in the hands of the assesse

Khushaal C. Thackersey, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 12(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3679/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Apr 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Justice (Rtd.) C.V. Bhadang () & Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am)

Section 54ESection 54F

sec.50AA of the Income tax Act, wherein the gains arising on sale/redemption of certain kinds of debentures is stated to be taxable as short term capital gain. We notice that section 50AA is applicable to a case of “market linked debentures” (MLD). In case of Market linked debentures, the interest ... tenure. The Parliament, by a legal fiction introduced in sec.50AA of the Act, has stated that the said gain is taxable as short term capital gains, even though the MLD might have been held for more than three years. The reason may be that the tax is payable on short

Raoul S. Thackersey, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 12(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3678/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Apr 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Justice (Rtd.) C.V. Bhadang () & Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am)

Section 54ESection 54F

East Bridge Capital Master Fund I Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Tax)-2(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2976/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Apr 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhआ.अ.सं.2976 2976/मुं/2023 (िन.व. 2020-2021) 2976 2976 East Bridge Capital Master Fund I Ltd. C/O. Ernst & Young Llp, 17Th Floor, The Ruby, 29Th Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar West, Mumbai – 400 028 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan:Aaece8814F बनाम Vs.

For Appellant: S/Shri Madhur Agarwal & Fenil Bhatt, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Sharma, CIT (DR)

Section 111ASection 143(3)Section 234BSection 70(2)

rejection of method of set- off of Short Term Capital Losses (STCL) incurred from transactions liable to tax at lower rate, against Short Term Capital Gains (STCG) chargeable to tax at higher rate i.e., 30% plus surcharge and cess. 2 East Bridge Capital Master Fund I ltd. 3. The facts ... Officer did not agree with the computation of net STCG by the Assessee. The Assessing Officer objected to set-off of losses of Short Term Capital Gains taxable at 15%, against the STCG taxable at higher rate, i.e., @ 30% even though the Assessee was having gains in STCG category taxable

D.Ramgopal, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(1), Coimbatore

The appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 581/CHNY/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Apr 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.581/Chny/2022 (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Shri D. Ramagopal Acit बनाम C/O.Mr. G.V. Jhabakh (Fca) Central Circle-1 157, P.M Swamy Colony, Coimbatore. / Vs. 5Th Street, Coimbatore. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Akgpr-3621-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Jhabakh(Ca)- Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som (Cit)-Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Final Hearing : 18-03-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09-04-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Jhabakh(CA)- Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT)-Ld. DR

Section 131Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271F

raised by the assessee read as under:- 1. The assessing officer and the C.I.T. appeal erred in making addition as Long Term and Short Term Capital Gain without considering the expenses involved to get the title. 2. The assessing officer and the C.I.T. appeal erred in treating cash deposits into ... Less: Cost of acquisition. from Smt Theresa Paulin through GPOA on 25.03.2009 Rs.2,50,000 Rs. 8,32,850/- Short Term Capital Gain 2.6 As against this, the assessee admitted Long-Term Capital Gain of Rs.0.40 Lacs only. The same was on account of the fact that the assessee claimed

Sheela Ashok Bafna, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward-20(3(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Nayanjyoti Nath (DR)

Section 133(6)Section 68

assessee has sold 15,500 shares after one year whereas the balance 4500 shares were sold prior to one year and offered short term capital gain to tax which has not been disputed by the AO. Thus out of a lot of 20,000 shares of M/s. Trinity Tradelink ... shares sold by the assessee prior to one year were not disputed by the AO as the short term capital gain was offered to tax by the assessee. The AO has disputed the transaction of purchase and sale only to the extent of the shares which were sold after

Bharath Hi-Tech Builders Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. ACIT, Circle-1(1)(2), Bangalore

ITA 1035/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George Kshri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Inder Paul Bansal &For Respondent: Shri Nilanjan Dey, Addl. CIT (DR)

Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "A" BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU

Mamchand Tyagi, Gaziabad vs. ITO, Ward-1(4), Gaziabad

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 207/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Apr 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 50

assessee by making additions of Rs. 30,07,332/- deposited in saving bank account as unexplained money; Rs. 13,35,000/- unexplained short term capital gain u/s 50 of the Act; and Rs. 6,650/- on account of bank interest. Aggrieved against it the assessee preferred appeal to the learned

Hayward Synthetics P Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle 2 (1) (1), Mumbai

In the result, present appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3644/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Dr. K.ShivaramFor Respondent: Shri P.D. Chougule

Section 143(3)Section 250

learned CIT (A) NFAC has erred in law and on facts in confirming Long Term Capital Gain of Rs. 40,11,769/- as Short term Capital Gain at Rs. 76,91,750/- without passing any speaking order on submissions made by the Appellant Co and without considering any authorities cited ... issued asking the Appellant to show-cause why the long term capital gain claimed by the Appellant should not be treated as short term capital gain. In response, Appellant filed reply, dated 27/11/2017, contending that right to obtain conveyance of property itself constituted property which fell within the definition

Goldgreen Land Holdings LLP( Formerly Gold Green Holdings Private Limited), Shankarpally Mandal, Mirzaguda vs. Income Tax Officer - Ward 2(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 473/HYD/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Mar 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं / Ita No. 473/Hyd/2023 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Goldgreen Land Holdings Llp Vs. Income Tax Officer, (Formerly Gold Green Holdings Ward-2(1), Private Limited), Hyderabad Shankarpally Mandal, Mirzaguda [Pan No. Aadcg2864N] अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent धििााररती द्वारा / Assessee By: Shri Kumar Pal Tated, Ar राजस्‍व द्वारा / Revenue By: Shri Shakeer Ahamed, Dr सुिवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 06/03/2024 घोर्णा की तारीख/Pronouncement On: 22/03/2024 आदेश / Order Per K. Narasimha Chary, J.M: Aggrieved By The Order Dated 07/08/2023 Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)”), In The Case Of Goldgreen Land Holdings Private Limited (“The Assessee”) For The Assessment Year 2017-18, Assessee Preferred This Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri Kumar Pal Tated, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shakeer Ahamed, DR

Section 143(3)Section 2(14)Section 48Section 50C

applicable in our case. Ground No.6 The assessing officer has erred in treating the exempted capital gains on sale of agriculture land as short term capital gain chargeable to tax. 1. During the financial year 2009-10 the assessee has entered into an agreement for purchase of agriculture land admeasuring ... assessee has sold the said property during the year 2016-17, the gain on sale of agriculture land should not be considered as short term capital gain. 3. Similarly, during the financial year 2009-10 the assessee has entered into an agreement for purchase of agriculture land admeasuring