“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

Jagmeet Singh Sabharwal, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Income Tax

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 954/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Surendra Singh Sabharwal, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik (Sr. DR)

Section 143(3)Section 2(47)Section 50C

assessee has mainly challenged the decision of the Assessing Officer treating the capital gains arising on sale of an immovable property as Short Term Capital Gains instead of Long Term Capital Gains as claimed by the assessee. The AO noted that the date of purchase of property as reflected ... registered sale deed dated 30.12.2011. On being pointed out to show cause as to why the transaction should not be considered as short term capital gains, it was explained by the assessee that he purchased a property in F.Y. 2006-07 and sold

Ishares Core Msci Total International Stock Etf (As A Successor to Ishare Core Taotal International Stock Mauritius Company ), Mumbai vs. Dy CIT (Int. Tax)-2(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 6774/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jan 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhailishares Core Msci Emerging Markets Etf (As A Successor To Ishares Core Emerging Markets Mauritius Company) C/O Ernst & Young Llp, 17Th Floor, The Ruby, 29, Senapati Bapat Marg, ............... Appellant Dadar (West), Mumbai - 400028 Pan : Aafci3337N V/S Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax (International Tax) - 2(2)(2) Room No.606, 6Th Floor, Kautilya Bhavan, ……………… Respondent C-41 To C-43, G-Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai – 400051 Ishares Msci All Country Asia Ex Japan Etf C/O Ernst & Young Llp, 17Th Floor, The Ruby, 29, Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar (West), Mumbai - 400028 Pan : Aabti7439L ............... Appellant

For Appellant: Shri Pranav GandhiFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 70Section 70(2)

erred in rejecting the hierarchy of set-off of short-term capital losses adopted by the Appellant and thereby, taxing the gross short-term capital gains (STCG) in respect of transactions on the sale of shares not chargeable to STT; 3. failed to appreciate that income under the head 'Capital ... High Court against one of the orders of the Jurisdictional Tribunal; 6. Without prejudice to the above, erred in not setting- off the short-term capital gains arising from sale of share not subjected to STT against brought forward unabsorbed short-term capital loss subjected to STT, contrary

Ishares Core Msci Emerging Markets Etf (As A Successor to Ishares Core Emerging Markets Mauritius Company, Mumbai vs. DCIT (Tp) 2(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 6051/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jan 2026AY 2023-24

For Appellant: Shri Pranav GandhiFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 70Section 70(2)

Ishares Msci All Country Asia Ex Japan Etf, Mumbai vs. DCIT (Int. Tax)-2(2)(2), Mumbai

ITA 6050/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jan 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Pranav GandhiFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 70Section 70(2)

Muthiah Lakshmanan, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-3(5), Chennai

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

ITA 3016/CHNY/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Jan 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Ms. T.V Muthu Abirami, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. ARV Sreenivasan, C.I.T

Section 111ASection 144Section 69

making an addition of Rs.35,11,90,432/- as unexplained investment u/s.69 of the Act and Rs.3,22,14,480/- as Short Term Capital Gain and arrived a total income of Rs.38,34,04,910/-. 3. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before ... NFAC ignored the documents available on record and detailed written submissions filed by the assessee and the issue on short term capital gains was decided based on the statement of facts alone. Further, the ld.AR of the assessee submitted additional documentary evidence before the Tribunal. In view of the above

Vikas Jain, Kanpur vs. ACIT-CC 2(1)(1), Kanpur

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

ITA 434/LKW/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2015-16 Vikas Jain, Vs. The Acit, H-2/1, Kidwai Nagar, Kanpur- Circle 2(1)(1), Kanpur 208001 208006 Pan: Abqpj8049R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Rakesh Garg, Adv Revenue By: Sh. Amit Kumar, Dr Date Of Hearing: 07.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.12.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac On 17.05.2024 Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Assessing Officer Under Section 147 R.W.S. 143(3) For The A.Y. 2015-16 On 27.12.2018. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “01. Because There Being No Reason To Believe, Far From There Being Any Material To Form Reasons To Believe, The Proceedings Initiated Right From Issue Of Notice U/S. 148 & The Re-Assessment Framed Thereof Are All Without Jurisdiction Bad In Law, The Order Passed Be Quashed. 02. Because The So-Called Reasons Having Been Recorded Applying Explanation 2(A) To Section 147, Of The Act Which Not Being Applicable, The Very Reason To Believe Being Contrary To The Mandate Of The Section, The Proceedings- Initiated U/S 148, The Reassessment Framed Are All Contrary To The Provisions Of Law, Be Quashed. 03. Because The Approval Given By The Competent Authority U/S 151, Being Mechanical In Nature Without Verification Of Facts, The Notice Issued U/S 148 & The Reassessment Framed Thereafter Be Quashed.

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Kumar, DR

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 156Section 48Section 50C

computed under the provisions of section 40(B) were reduced due to the reason that profit on sale of assets was considered as short term capital gain instead of business income resulting into reduced attributable partners remuneration. The ld. CIT(A) considered all these issues raised by the assessee

Vasant Ganesh Marathe, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 19(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 5796/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryvasant Ganesh Marathe Ito Ward 19(2)(2) Room No. 70, Moiddin Chawl, Kautilya Bhavan Kalina Village, Santacruz East Vs. Bandra East Mumbai-400 057. Mumbai-400 051. Pan : Ajnpm5644C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Suresh Otwani, Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri Praveen K. Srivastav, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing : 20/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/12/2025 O R D E R Per Narender Kumar Choudhry (Jm) :-

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Otwani, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Praveen K. Srivastav

Section 144

assessment order dated 23.1.2022 under section 144 and 144B of the Act, whereby the addition of Rs. 18,50,745/- on account of short term capital gains has been made by the Assessing Officer, in limine, but not on merits of the case. Thus, this Court by respectfully following

Lalitadevi Giriraj Kishore Malpani, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 41(4)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 5023/MUM/2025[2015 - 16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2025

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year : 2015-16 Lalitadevi Giriraj Kishore Income Tax Officer, Malpani, Ward-41(4)(2), 502, 5Th Floor,Sea View Chs, Vs. R.No. 116,Kautilya Bhawan, Near Ram Mandir Temple, C-41 To C-43,G Block, Bkc, Bangur Nagar,Goregaon (W), Bandra (E), Mumbai-400090. Mumbai-400051. Pan : Aadpm9211C (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Ajay Daga , Ld. Ld. Ar For Revenue : Shri Vikas Chandra, Ld. Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 10-11-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30-12-2025 O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Againstthe Order Dated 28-06-2024 Impugned Herein Passed By The Addl/Jcit(A)-6, Kolkata/Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (In Short “Ld.Commissioner”) U/S. 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short „The Act‟) For The Ay. 2015-16. 2 2. At The Outset It Is Observed That There Is A Delay Of 346 Days In Filing The Instant Appeal On Which The Assessee Has Claimed As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Daga , Ld. Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Vikas Chandra, Ld. Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

assessment but also on merits in respect of assessing the long-term capital loss on transfer of rights in under construction flat as short-term capital gain. 2. Subsequent to the filing of appeal, the Applicant was diagnosed with cancer in or around February 2020 and is presently ... flat on a consideration of Rs. 1,25,94,687/-vide agreement dt.30-07-2014 registered on 11- 08-2014 and has not shown any Short Term Capital Gain on the said property. On the contrary, the assessee claimed Long Term Capital Loss of Rs.(-)7,35,995/-on sale of others

Balasaheb Vitthal Shinde, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 5(4), Pune, Aayakar Vibhag, Pmt Building, Swargate

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

ITA 674/PUN/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2011-12 Balasaheb Vitthal Shinde Ito, Ward-5(4), Pune Chaledi, Nasarapur, Taluka Bhor, Vs. Pune – 412213 Pan: Anips1140A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Deepak S Sasar Department By : Shri Vidya Ratan Kishore Date Of Hearing : 17-12-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-12-2025 O R D E R Per R.K. Panda, Vp:

For Appellant: Shri Deepak S SasarFor Respondent: Shri Vidya Ratan Kishore

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 2Section 63

determining the total income of the assessee at Rs.60,02,223/- wherein he made addition of Rs.49,44,572/- on account of short term capital gain and tower rent of Rs.1,57,138/- as income from other sources. 3. Before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC the assessee filed certain additional

Mr. Girish Kisandas Mehta, Pune vs. ITO Ward 9 (3), Pune

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

ITA 1259/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1259/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Mr. Girish Kisandas Mehta, Vs. Ito, Ward-9(3), Pune. Mehta Niwas Bhairavnath Nagar, Kusgaon, Lonavala, Maval, Pune- 410401. Pan : Akepm3983A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Bhuvanesh Kankani Revenue By Smt. N. C. Shilpa : Date Of Hearing : 17.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.12.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 17.03.2025 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Prevailing In The Case & As Per Provisions & Scheme Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 ('The Act') It Be Held That The Assessment Proceedings Initiated U/S 147 Of The Act Are Invalid Since The Requisite Approval/Sanction U/S 151(Ii) Of The Act Is Not Taken. Accordingly, The Assessment Proceedings So Initiated Be Kindly Annulled & Appellant Be Granted Just & Proper Relief In This Respect.

For Appellant: Shri Bhuvanesh Kankani

Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 2(14)Section 80C

against the income returned by the assessee at Rs.2,18,270/-. The above assessed income includes additions on account of short term capital gain of Rs.58,00,000/- on sale of two immovable property and addition of Rs.92,665/- towards disallowance of deduction claimed

Gaddam Mohan Reddy, Nizamabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Nizamabad

ITA 1685/HYD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: the AO during re-assessment proceedings.4. The authorities below further failed to appreciate that on the same set of facts, the AO with all his expertise on the provisions of the Act has allowed the deduction claimed Under Section 54F of the Act in the assessment order passed Under Section 143(3) r.w.s Section 147 of the Act and that deduction claimed by the appellant Under Section 54F of the Act was by inadvertent.

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 54Section 54F

Venki Infra & Developers, Nizamabad. Thus, the PCIT observed that out of 1041.34 sq yds of land transferred, the assessee had derived short term capital gain (STCG) in respect of 517.87 sq yds of land (as the period of holding of the said piece of land was less than 36 months ... directions of the PCIT, and disallowed the assessee’s claim for deduction under section 54F insofar the same pertained to the short-term capital gains of 5 Gaddam Mohan Reddy vs. ITO Rs.16,29,727/-. The AO while culminating the assessment, inter alia, initiated penalty proceedings under section 274 r.w.s

Thulasi Chamarthy, Chittoor vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Chittoor

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 1374/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 250Section 54Section 54F

exemptions u/s 54/54EC on the long-term capital gain component attributable to the undivided land, and in wrongly taxing the entire gain as short-term capital gain, without appreciating that the appellant had fully complied with section 54F in AY 2015-16 and that denial of legitimate indexation and exemption ... observed that the assessee had held the property for a period of less than three years and the capital gain derived therefrom was short term capital gain (STCG). Accordingly, the AO held a conviction that the assessee was not eligible for deduction under section 54 and 54EC

Sindhumati Ramavtar Pathak, Borivali Mumbai vs. Asst Commissioner of Income Tax 32 3 Mumbai Presently Dy C I T Circle 42 3 1 Mumbai, Mumbai

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 4914/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry (Jm) & Shri Prabhash Shankar (Am) Sindhumati Ramavtar Pathak Acit-32(3) 4, Shree Bhalchandra Kripa Presently Cit, Circle Building, Daulat Nagar Road Vs. 42(3)(1) No. 3, Borivali East Kautilya Bhavan Bkc, Mumbai-400 066. Mumbai-51. Pan : Agbpp5972D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Singh, Ld. ADVFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, Ld. DR

Section 10(38)Section 250Section 68Section 69C

Appellant before Your Honours is a widow and senior citizen. The Appellant is a regular investor in shares and regularly offers Short Term Capital Gains and Long Term Capital Gains as well as Speculation Profit / Loss in her return of income. Page 4 - 7 of the paper book

Navasakthi Townships Developers Pvt. Ltd., Cuddalore vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Cuddalore

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2921/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr. K. Ilaiyaraja, Addl. CITFor Respondent: 17.12.2025

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151A

Department dated 14.03.2023 u/s.147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B of the Act by making an addition of Rs.1,58,20,000/- treated as Short Term Capital Gain and Rs.3.00,000/- (10% of the TDS payment of Rs.30,00,000/-) treated as business income of the assessee and added to the total

Arun Kumar Sarup, Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4709/MUM/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain& Shri Prabhash Shankararun Kumar Sarup Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of 2Nd Floor, Amartara Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Circle Saki Vihar Road, Powai, 1(1)(1), Mumbai Mumbai – 400072. 553, 5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavn, Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai - 400020 Pan/Gir No. Aahps2384Q (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

categorized into Short term or Long term. 12. Thus, for determining the question – whether the assessee has earned long term capital gains or short term capital gains, it is necessary to ascertain the holding period of shares, i.e., time period commencing from the date of allotment of shares and ending

Dy.CIT Cent. Cir -6(2), Mumbai vs. Shri Ashok B. Jiwarjka, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are hereby dismissed and the cross

ITA 2355/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Shri. Omkareshwar Chidara, Am

For Appellant: Shri. Bharat KumarFor Respondent: Shri. Surendra Mohan (SR-DR)

Section 132(1)Section 250Section 68Section 69C

short) observed that the assessee along with other beneficiaries had earned huge Long Term Capital Gain ('LTCG' for short) and Short Term Capital Gain (‘STCG' for short) which, based on the investigation report received from the Directorate of Investigation, Delhi, that the assessee has transacted in certain scripts viz. Radford

Dy.C.I, T. Cent. Cir -6(2), Mumbai vs. Shri Ashok B. Jiwrajka, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are hereby dismissed and the cross

ITA 2353/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Shri. Omkareshwar Chidara, Am

For Appellant: Shri. Bharat KumarFor Respondent: Shri. Surendra Mohan (SR-DR)

Section 132(1)Section 250Section 68Section 69C

short) observed that the assessee along with other beneficiaries had earned huge Long Term Capital Gain (‘LTCG' for short) and Short Term Capital Gain (‘STCG' for short) which, based on the investigation report received from the Directorate of Investigation, Delhi, that the assessee has transacted in certain scripts viz. Radford

Dy.C.I.T. Cent. Cir -6(2), Mumbai vs. Shri Ashok B.Jiwrajka, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are hereby dismissed and the cross

ITA 2352/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Shri. Omkareshwar Chidara, Am

For Appellant: Shri. Bharat KumarFor Respondent: Shri. Surendra Mohan (SR-DR)

Section 132(1)Section 250Section 68Section 69C

Dy C.I.T. Cent Cir -6(2), `Mumbai vs. Shri Ashok B. Jiwrajka, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are hereby dismissed and the cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2351/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Shri. Omkareshwar Chidara, Am

For Appellant: Shri. Bharat KumarFor Respondent: Shri. Surendra Mohan (SR-DR)

Section 132(1)Section 250Section 68Section 69C

Ketan Anand, Delhi vs. ITO Ward 45, Delhi

In the result, grounds of appeal raised by assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 5195/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Ketan Anand Ito- Ward 45, Delhi. 100C Dda Janta Flat Shivaji Vs Enclave, Delhi-110027 [Pan:Arupk6159P] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Sh. Vijay Prakash Agarwal, Adv & Sh. Akshay Agarwal, Adv (Through Vc) & Sh. K.K. Panday, Adv Revenue By Sh. Virendra Kumar Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Institution Of Appeal 26.08.2025 Date Of Hearing 04.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 23.12.2025 Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act

Section 10(38)Section 148Section 148ASection 254(1)Section 68Section 69C

adjudication of all the issue afresh. He undertook on behalf of assessee to provide complete detail to substantiate short term capital gain and long term capital gain and sale of shares in both the scrips. 3. On the other hand, the ld. Sr. DR for the revenue after going through ... price, purchase price and profit earned on sale of such shares. In respect of shares of Monotype India Pvt. Ltd., the assessee claimed short term capital gain and on sale of shares of Oasis Trade Link, the assessee claim long term capital gain. The assessee also relied on certain decision