“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

Komal Agarwal, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT -CC-7(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 645/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 645/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Komal Agarwal बिधम / Dcit, Central Circle 7(3) 203, Ugam, N.S Road No.9, Room No 655, 6Th Floor, Vs. Jvpd Scheme, Juhu, Ville Ayakar Bhavan, M.K. Parle (W), Mumbai-400097 Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 स्थधयी लेखध सं/.जीआइआर सं/.Pan/Gir No. : Ahwpr9295B (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri Harion TulsiyanFor Respondent: Shri P. D. Chougule

Section 10(38)Section 132Section 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

Rohit Manohar Shetty, Mumbai vs. ACIT 35(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 2914/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Feb 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Arvind PintoFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair

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

Assessing Officer, of Rs..77,79,564 being Rs.73,86,255 plus 5% commission as income from other sources, instead of accepting the short-term capital gains of Rs.21,69,2115 as declared in the return of income. Shri Rohit Manohar Shetty ITA no.2914/Mum./2023 2. On the facts ... also the face less LD CIT(A) has ignored the fact that this was a genuine transaction, which has resulted in a short term capital gain of Rs.23,31,334/- where tax of Rs.3,49,000/- was paid and not a case where a short term or long term capital

Shripal Sheshmal Jain, HUF, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(4), Ahmedabad

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 657/AHD/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Jan 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kambleassessment Year: 2012-13 Shripal Sheshmal Jain Huf, Income Tax Officer, Vs A-6, Maskati Market, Ward-1(2)(4), Sakar Bazar, Ahmedabad-380002 Ahmedabad Pan : Aahhs 7762 L अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Aseem L. Thakkar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Aashish Rajesh Revar, Sr Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24/01/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31/01/2024

For Appellant: Shri Aseem L. Thakkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Aashish Rajesh Revar, Sr DR

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 5. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee has not claimed Short Term Capital Gain or Long Term Capital Gain in respect of the sale of scrip i.e. “VAS Infrastructure Ltd.” The ld. AR further submitted that the assessee has given all the details ... disputed at any point of time. It is further noticed that the assessee has not claimed any Long Term Capital Gain or Short Term Capital Gain as well as any loss in respect of these trading of shares. From the perusal of purchase and selling of shares/scrip of VAS Infrastructure

Aakruti Ketan Mehta, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward-35(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 53/MUM/2023[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2024AY 2014-2015

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), MS. PADMAVATHY S (Accountant Member)

Section 10(38)Section 131Section 143(3)Section 68

deduced that purchase of these 4 Aakruti Ketan Mehta shares were predetermined scheme on part of the assessee to acquire long term / short term capital gains or loss by way of dubious methods. Thereafter, AO referred to survey action in the case of Sunrise Asian Ltd. and statement of Director

Rajkumar Ghanshyamdas Bajaj, Gujrat vs. The Income Tax Officer, International Tax Ward 1(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, without deciding on merits of any of the grounds of appeal, the matter is restored back to the Ld

ITA 3366/MUM/2023[11-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2024

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Rajkumar Ghanshyamdas The Income Tax Officer, Bajaj International Tax Ward 360, A North Unit 3, 1(2)(1), Vs. Apna Nagar, Gandhidham, Mittal Court, Gopalpuri, Kachchh, Mumbai - 400021 Gujarat – 370 240 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. Ayush ChhajedFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, Sr. DR

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 249(3)

reply was received and therefore the assessment order was passed under section 144 of the Act on 19.12.2018 wherein the addition of short term capital gain of Rs.23,00,000/- was made on sale of immovable property. However, addition of Rs.2,20,20,000/- was also made being un-explained

Shantaben Fathechand Mehta, Mumbai vs. ITO 29 (3)(4), Mumbai

ITA 6698/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri.Narender Kumar Choudhry () & Miss. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 143(1)Section 250

Assessing Officer observed that the Assessee has derived income from Other Sources, Salary and House property. Further, the Assessee as per working of short term capital gain attached with the return of income has earned a short term capital gain of Rs. 2,41,865/- on sale of shares

Sri. Sandeep Narayan Gowda, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(2)(3), Bangalore

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

ITA 1026/BANG/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jan 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri B.R. Sudheendra, CAFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian .S, JCIT DR

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 54

circumstances of the case and law applicable, TDS credit of Rs. 15,878 should be allowed. Page 4 of 7 Addition for short term capital gains on sale of shares 12. Without prejudice, the NFAC has erred in making addition for short term capital gains on sale of shares amounting ... facts and circumstances of the case and law applicable, the addition made for short term capital gains on sale of shares amounting to Rs. 1,47,371 is bad in law and liable to be deleted. Levy of interest under section 234A and 234B 13. The learned NFAC erred

Shashi Khanna, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-29, New Delhi

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

ITA 2941/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jan 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2941/Del/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 बनाम Shashi Khanna, Acit C/O Khanna Jewellers, 2623-24, Vs. Central Circle-29, Bank Street, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. New Delhi.

Assessing Officer (for short referred as the “AO”) to compute the long term capital gains as against computation made by the AO as short term capital gains. Copy of the order is placed on record. 3. Heard rival submissions. On perusal of the order of the Tribunal in co-owner ... record. 4. The Ld.CIT(A) at page no.9 of the order concurred with the observation with the Assessing Officer and in determination of “Short Term Capital Gains” (STCG) as the property was reconstructed after demolition of old house and after getting the plan sanctioned from

DCIT Circle 13(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Nandanbala Commercials Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and cross objection filed by the assesse is also dismissed

ITA 1134/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhdy. Commissioner Of Vs. Nandanbala Commercials Income Tax Circle 13(2)(2) Private Limited Room No. 452, 4 Th Floor, (Formerly Known As Sanjay Infraspace Limited) Aayakar Bhavan, 1401-A, Wing One Bkc, M.K. Road, Plot No. C-66, G-Block, Mumbai – 400020 Bkc, Bandra-East Mumbai -400 092 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aavcs1575L Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: HM Bhatt

Section 143(2)Section 36(1)(ii)

above facts the assessing officer treated the gain of Rs. 1.90 crores earned on the sale transactions of mutual funds as short term capital gain of sale of mutual funds. The AO had disallowed the claim of interest expenses of Rs.12,00,14,253/-. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee filed ... officer in respect of not treating the interest payment as business expenses and assessing the income from sale of mutual Fund Funds as Short Term Capital Gain. On the other hand, the ld. Counsel submitted that assesse company was incorporated to conduct the business as builders and developer and real

Nilesh Bhagwan Londhe, Pune vs. ITO, Ward-14(2), Pune

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

ITA 1272/PUN/2023[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Pune25 Jan 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde

Section 143(3)

earmarked portion. He replies that he has filed all the relevant details and therefore, entitled for the impugned expenditure for computing his short term capital gains. We see no merit in assessee’s submissions as merely by filing documentary evidences, he could hardly meet the case of allowability of expenditure

Vineet Mittal, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cent . Cir 3(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2428/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jan 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Choudhry, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 10(38)Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 153A

circumstances evidences leading to the conclusion that the Long Term Capital Gain earned is not genuine. Further, assessee has not declared any Short Term Capital Gain or business income or exempt income of share transactions in the previous assessment years. 17. Further he brought to our notice that the assessee

Vineeet Mittal, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cent. Cir 3(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2427/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jan 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Choudhry, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 10(38)Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 153A

Shree Yamuna Industries, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-3(2)(5), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 154/AHD/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Jan 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 50C

learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has grievously erred in confirming the addition of Rs.66,04,135/- made as short term capital gains by adopting the Stamp Duty Valuation under Section 50C of the Act and also by disallowing the claim of cost of improvement while computing the capital gains ... statutory notices, the assessee furnished written reply/clarification/explanation vide letter dated 16.11.2017. After taking cognisance of the assessee’s reply, the Assessing Officer disallowed Short Term Capital Gain (STCG) to the extent of Rs.66,04,135/- thereby making addition of the same. 4. Being aggrieved by the Assessment Order, the assessee

Jpr Investments and Trading Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 12(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2636/MUM/2023[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2024AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Amarjit Singhjpr Investments & Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Trading Private Limited, Income Tax, Circle 210, Shree Naman Plaza, 12(3)(1), Aayakar S.V. Road, Kandivali West Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400067 New Marine Lines Maharashtra – 400020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aabcj0559R Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Rajesh S. Athavale Respondent By : Ujjwal Kumar Date Of Hearing 09.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 24.01.2024

For Appellant: Rajesh S. AthavaleFor Respondent: Ujjwal Kumar

Section 143(2)

Assessing Officer (AO) in treating the income of INR 5,05,38,690 realised on sale of securities as business income against the short term capital gains as declared by the appellant in its return of income. The learned CIT(A) erred not directing the AO to apply the principle ... Investments and Trading Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT, Circle 12(3)(1) by the appellant against the short term capital gains declared in the return of income. 4. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the levy of interest under Sections 234A and 234B of the Income tax Act. 5. Each

Amarjit Kaur Surinder Singh Kochhar, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-12(1)(1), Aayakar Bhawan, Mumbai

ITA 2513/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleamarjit Kaur Surinder Vs. Ito Ward-12(1)(1), Singh Kochhar, Aayakar Bhawan, 4, Plot No.667, 4Th Floor M.K.Road, Satguru Sundari, Mumbai-400020. Dr. Ambedkar Road, Khar (W), Mumbai-400052. Pan/Gir No. : Agspk6461F Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: ShriManiJain&ShriPrateekJain.ARFor Respondent: Shri.G.J.Ninawe. Sr.DR

Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 148Section 151Section 68Section 69C

financial statements, the Assessing Officer found that the assessee has disclosed the income from salary, income from house property, business income, short term capital gains and income from other sources. Further the assessee has disclosed and claimed the exemption U/sec10(38) of the Act being long term capital gains

Jitendra Vadilal Patel, Ahmedabad vs. Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department Present Jurisdiction the ITO, Ward-7(2)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 906/AHD/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Jan 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2021-22

Section 143(3)Section 144B

sale proceeds of agriculture land. The Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.25,50,000/- being the sale consideration of rural agriculture land as short-term capital gain in the absence of documentary evidences of agriculture land. The appellant also reserves his right to submit all the details in connection with ... Section 143(3) read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 thereby making addition of Rs.25,50,000/- on account of Short Term Capital Gain (STCG). 4. Being aggrieved by the Assessment Order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal

Amit Kumar Bhardwaj, Meerut vs. ITO, Ward-58(2), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3494/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Jan 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri M. Balaganeshamit Kumar Bhardwaj, Vs. Ito, 282, Boundary Road, Ward-58(2), Civic Line Meerut, Uttar Delhi Pradesh Pan: Ajopb9557C Assessee By : Shri Vinod Kumar Goel, Adv Revenue By: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 17/01/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 17/01/2024

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 50C

with the undivided share of land on proportionate basis. Ground floor and second floor remained with the assessee and his wife. Accordingly, the short term capital gains arising on transfer of first floor and 3rd floor would have to be divided equally between assessee and his wife. Hence, the assessee

Surya Pratap Singh, Meerut vs. ITO Ward-2(5), Meerut

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

ITA 2064/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Jan 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahyasurya Pratap Singh, Vs. Ito, Ward 2 (5), Ka – 138, Galaxy Ganga, Meerut. Ganga Nagar, Meerut (Uttar Pradesh).

For Appellant: Shri R.K. Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(b)Section 54Section 54F

ever issued or served as per return filed & assessed. 8. That the Learned authorities below is wrong in assessing the income as short term capital gain, when the date of purchase of property was duly mentioned in sale deed as 07.03.2003, and the assessee has filed the copies of purchase

Venerable Advertising Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. PCIT, Kol-1, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 459/KOL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Jan 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No.459/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Venerable Advertising Pvt. Ltd....................…...……………....Appellant 6, Kali Krishna Tagore Street, Jorbagan, Kolkata- 700007. [Pan: Aaacv8673M] Vs. Pcit, Kolkata-1, Kolkata…..........................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Aayush Kedia, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri S. Datta, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 30, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 16, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Revision Order Dated 14.03.2023 Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Pcit’] U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). The Assessee In This Appeal Has Agitated Against The Action Of The Pr. Cit In Exercising His Revision Jurisdiction U/S 263 Of The Act & Thereby Directing The Assessing Officer To Frame The Assessment Afresh. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Vide Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year Under Consideration I.E. A.Y 2018-19 Declared Total Income Of Rs.1,09,24,210/- Which Was Accepted By The Assessing Officer In The Assessment Carried Out U/S 143(3) Of The Act. However, Later On, The Ld. Pr. Cit In Exercising Of His Revision

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 94(7)

Assessment Year: 2018-19 Venerable Advertising Pvt. Ltd jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act, observed from the record that the assessee had shown short term capital gain on shares of Rs.40,94,308/- whereas from the schedule CG of ITR, it was seen that the assessee computed the said short ... factual error in the show cause notice of the LD Pr. CIT by stating that the LD Pr. CIT has only considered the short-term capital gain reported under 'Note 12: Other Income' of the Audited Financial Statement but has completely ignored the Short-Term Capital Loss

Samrat Finvestors Private Limited., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward- 10(2), Kolkata.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 840/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Jan 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 840/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Samrat Finvestors Private Limited Income Tax Officer, Ward – 10(2), 20/1, Maharshi Debendra Vs Kolkata 2Nd Floor, Room No. 13A Kolkata - 700007 [Pan : Aadcs4698G] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Soumitra Choudhury, A/R Revenue By : Shri B.K. Singh, Jcit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 14/12/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 11/01/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Rajesh Kumar: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, [Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”] Dt. 27/06/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Assessee In The Instant Appeal Has Raised Two Effective Issues In The Various Grounds Before Us Which Are Summed Up As Under:- (I) That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Confirming The Disallowance Of Rs.3,98,50,208/- As Made By The Assessing Officer On Account Alleged Bogus Loss In Share Trading & In F&O Segment. (Ii) The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Upholding The Addition Of Rs.11,58,944/- As Made By The Assessing

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, A/RFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Singh, JCIT, Sr. D/R

Section 133(6)Section 14ASection 250

| आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण "यायपीठ, कोलकाता | IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, HON’BLE