← All Phrases

“short term capital gain”

Capital GainsSection 2(42A)Section 2(42A)1,986 judgments

The decision most relied on for short term capital gain is CIT v. Ace Builders (P) Ltd. (281 ITR 210), cited in 88 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on short term capital gain

CIT v. Ace Builders (P) Ltd.
281 ITR 210 · 2005 · High Court
88
citing judgments

The deeming fiction in Section 50, which treats capital gains from depreciable assets as short-term, applies only for the purpose of computing capital gains under that section. For other provisions, such as set-off of losses under Section 74 or deductions under Section 54E/54EC, the asset's original character (long-term or short-term) is to be considered.

CIT, Panji v. Dempo Company Limited
74 Taxmann.com 15 · 2016 · Supreme Court
62
citing judgments

The 20% tax rate under Section 112 applies to capital gains arising from the transfer of a depreciable asset, even if it is deemed a short-term capital gain under Section 50, provided the asset was held for more than 36 months. The fiction created by Section 50 for treating such gains as short-term does not alter the long-term nature of the asset for applying the tax rate under Section 112.

Raja Bahadur Kamakhya Narain Singh v. CIT
77 ITR 253 · 1970 · Supreme Court
49
citing judgments

The Supreme Court clarifies the distinction between income chargeable as capital gains and income taxable as business profits, guiding the assessment of whether a transaction constitutes a transfer of a capital asset or is in the nature of trade.

Indl. Development Co. (P) Ltd., 82 ITR 588 (SC). (ii). CIT v. H. Holck Larsen
288 ITR 641 · 2007 · Reported
41
citing judgments

Surplus received on sale and purchase of shares should be treated as capital gains (short-term or long-term as applicable) and not as business income.

Mrs. Madhu Kaul v. CIT
363 ITR 54 · 2014 · High Court
35
citing judgments

The period of holding a flat for capital gains purposes commences from the date of the allotment letter and the first installment payment, not from the later date of possession or registration.

Gopal Purohit v. JCIT
29 SOT 117 · 2009 · ITAT
33
citing judgments

The revenue is debarred from taking inconsistent stands on similar facts across different assessment years, adhering to the rule of consistency. Short-term capital gains are assessable under the head 'Capital Gains' only.

Raja Bahadur Visheshwar Singh v. CIT
73 ITR 652 · 1969 · Supreme Court
26
citing judgments

The intention of the assessee at the time of purchasing shares is a key criterion to determine capital gains treatment. This intention can be ascertained from how the purchase was treated in the assessee's books.

JCIT v. Montgomery Emerging Marketing Funds,\n
100 ITD 217 · 2006 · ITAT
23
citing judgments

Each transaction can be considered a separate source of income, allowing taxpayers to choose between the Income-tax Act and a Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) for each transaction. Section 70(2) of the Act does not prescribe an order for setting off specific short-term capital losses against specific short-term capital gains, favouring the taxpayer in interpretation.

Judgments citing short term capital gain

Lakshmanan, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw - 1 (3), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2744/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2882/Chny/2018 & नि◌धा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2015-16 V. Mr.Lakshmanan, The Income Tax Officer, No.7/2, 1St Floor, Akm Nest, Non-Corporate Ward-1(3), Jawaharlal Nehru Street, T.Nagar, Chennai. Chennai-600 017. [Pan: Aabpl 4326 R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.T. Vasudevan, AdvFor Respondent: Mr.AR.V.Sreenivasan
Section 43(5)Section 45

order of the officer treating the purchase and sale of shares as speculative transaction under sec.43(5) as against the assessee returning short term capital gains. 3. The CIT(A) further erred in denying the adjustment of the carried forward business loss against the STCG computed by the assessee ... shares is effected only after delivery is taken and it enters the demat account and hence the assessee has rightly considered it as short term capital gains. 7. The CIT(A) further failed to appreciate that the assessee has never indulged in intraday trade in shares and the shares transacted

Lakshmanan Revathi, Chennai vs. ITO N.C.W 1(3), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2883/CHNY/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2882/Chny/2018 & नि◌धा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2015-16 V. Mr.Lakshmanan, The Income Tax Officer, No.7/2, 1St Floor, Akm Nest, Non-Corporate Ward-1(3), Jawaharlal Nehru Street, T.Nagar, Chennai. Chennai-600 017. [Pan: Aabpl 4326 R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.T. Vasudevan, AdvFor Respondent: Mr.AR.V.Sreenivasan
Section 43(5)Section 45

order of the officer treating the purchase and sale of shares as speculative transaction under sec.43(5) as against the assessee returning short term capital gains. 3. The CIT(A) further erred in denying the adjustment of the carried forward business loss against the STCG computed by the assessee ... shares is effected only after delivery is taken and it enters the demat account and hence the assessee has rightly considered it as short term capital gains. 7. The CIT(A) further failed to appreciate that the assessee has never indulged in intraday trade in shares and the shares transacted

Lakshmanan, Chennai vs. ITO N.C.W 1(3), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2882/CHNY/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2882/Chny/2018 & नि◌धा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2015-16 V. Mr.Lakshmanan, The Income Tax Officer, No.7/2, 1St Floor, Akm Nest, Non-Corporate Ward-1(3), Jawaharlal Nehru Street, T.Nagar, Chennai. Chennai-600 017. [Pan: Aabpl 4326 R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.T. Vasudevan, AdvFor Respondent: Mr.AR.V.Sreenivasan
Section 43(5)Section 45

order of the officer treating the purchase and sale of shares as speculative transaction under sec.43(5) as against the assessee returning short term capital gains. 3. The CIT(A) further erred in denying the adjustment of the carried forward business loss against the STCG computed by the assessee ... shares is effected only after delivery is taken and it enters the demat account and hence the assessee has rightly considered it as short term capital gains. 7. The CIT(A) further failed to appreciate that the assessee has never indulged in intraday trade in shares and the shares transacted

M/S. Sumit Exports, Mumbai vs. The ACIT 19(3), Mumbai

ITA 645/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Sumit Export V. Acit – 19(3) Dw-5030, 5Th Floor Matru Mandir, Tardev Road D.Tower, Bharat Diamond Bourse Mumbai – 400 007 Bandra Kurla Complex Bandra (E), Mumbai -400051 Pan: Aacfs3599Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Rahul Sarda Department Represented By : Shri Manoj Sinha

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 2(14)Section 2(47)

becomes short term capital asset on the date of transfer i.e.,19.05.2012. Therefore, the capital gain on sale of this asset would constitute short term capital gain. Accordingly, the assessee was asked to why the premises so transferred should not be treated as short term capital gain. In response, assessee ... made by the assessee before the lapse of 3 years from their Allotment to the assessee. Hence, the sale consideration thereof would constitute Short Term Capital Gain as against the Long Term Capital Gains as held by the assessee. Moreover, it is also seen that two parking spaces

Ratanlal Jaitlia HUF, Mumbai vs. CIT, Faceless

In the result, this appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 232/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Ratanlal Jaitlia Huf National Faceless Assessment 602, Rajendra Ratna, Mahesh Nagar, Centre, Ward 31(1)(6), Sv Road, Goregaon (W), Vs. Mumbai Mumbai-400 062

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Maheshwari
Section 144Section 154Section 250Section 69Section 69A

Ratanlal Jaitlia HUF vs. NFAC Comfort Intec Ltd., which is alleged to be bogus long term capital gain (‘LTCG’ for short)/ short term capital gain (‘STCG’ for short). 4. Aggrieved by this, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A), who confirmed the addition made

Nishith Rameshchandra Shah, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 23(2)(6), Mumbai

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

ITA 1116/MUM/2022[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Nov 2022AY 2012-2013
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH MUMBAI SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER Nishith

M/S. Anupam Ranjan (HUF), Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(2)(1), Bangalore

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 512/BANG/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2012 – 13

For Appellant: Smt. Pratibha, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Baseganni, D.R
Section 54Section 54F

long term capital gain from these transactions. However, the AO bifurcated the capital gain as long term capital gain as well as short term capital gain and computed the long term and short term gain as below:- “The Long Term Capital gain and short term Capital gain from the above ... assessee’s income has to be computed from the JDA as only under head “Long term Capital gain” and there is no short-term capital gain as the gain arised consequent to the assessee entered into JDA with M/s. Ashiana Marketing & Constructions Pvt. Ltd. on 11.1.2007. It was the contention

ACIT -6(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Clothing Culture Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 495/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: This Tribunal By The Revenue During The Covid Period. Hence, In View Of The Relaxation Granted By The Hon’Ble Supreme Court, The Delay Of 123 Days Is Hereby Condoned & Appeal Of The Revenue Is Admitted For Adjudication.

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 43(5)Section 68

evade the payment of tax by categorising a receipt chargeable to tax at higher rate of 30% by treating the same as Short Term Capital Gain chargeable to tax at 15%, and only following the survey action u/s 133A, and during the course of the subsequent assessment proceeding the assessee ... A.Y.2014-15 on 28/11/2014 declaring total income of Rs.14,75,45,668/- comprising of business loss of Rs.19,30,14,338/- and short term capital gains of Rs.34,05,60,006/-. Subsequently in the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee filed a revised return on 22/03/2016 revising its total income

ITO -19(2) (4), Mumbai vs. Shri Prakash Chandra Surajmal Gandhi, Mumbai

ITA 2272/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 2272/मुं/2021 ("न.व 2011-12) Income Tax Officer – 19(2)(4), Room No.217, 2Nd Floor, Matru Mandir, Grant Road, Mumbai 400 007 ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Shri Prakash Chandra Surajmal Gandhi, 41, Ashutosh Co-Op Society, 38A, Nepeansea Road, Mumbai 400 006 Pan: Aacpg-9520-B ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Ms. Beena Santosh ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri A.K. Vaidyalingan सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 03/08/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 31/10/2022 आदेश/ Order This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals) National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [In Short 'The Cit(A)’] Dated 05/10/2021 For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Revenue Is In Appeal Against The Order Of Cit(A) In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.27,31,200/- On Account Of Sale Consideration Received On Sale Of Shares Of Action Financial Services Limited. The Assessing Officer Made Addition Of The Entire Sale Consideration Of Shares As Unexplained Income Under Section 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [ In Short ‘The Act’].

For Appellant: Ms. Beena SantoshFor Respondent: Shri A.K. Vaidyalingan
Section 143(3)Section 68

time starting from Financial Year 2005-06 onwards. Thereafter, the assessee sold the aforesaid shares in the Financial Year 2007-08. The short term capital gain on sale of shares was offered to tax. The major chunk of shares were sold by the assessee in financial year 2008-09, wherein

Ashok Jasraj Jain, HUF, Mumbai vs. ACIT-19(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 5609/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Ashok Jasraj Jain, Huf, Acit-19(1), 45/12, Rajkotwala Bldg., 2Nd Floor, Matru Mandir Bldg., 1St Carpenter Street, C.P. Tank, Vs. Tardeo Road, Mumbai-400 004. Mumbai-400 007. Pan No. Aaahj 0191 D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Mehul Shah, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Manoj Sinha, Dr Date Of Hearing : 23/08/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 31/10/2022

For Appellant: Mr. Mehul Shah, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Manoj Sinha, DR
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 148

arranged accommodation entry of bogus long term capital gain, bo accommodation entry of bogus long term capital gain, bogus short term gus short term capital gain and bogus capital gain and bogus short term capital loss/bogus business loss through short term capital loss/bogus business loss through trading of shares

ITO 11(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Realstone Exports Ltd, Thane

In the result, the appeal of revenue as well as cross-objection of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2993/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2993/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2011-12) Ito-11(1)(2) M/S. Realstone Exports बिधम/ Room No.202, Aayakar Limited Vs. Bhavan, M. K. Marg, C-204, 2Nd Floor, Vishal Mumbai-400020. Apartments, Taki Road, Tulij, Nallasopara (E), Thane, Maharashtra- 401209. Cross Objection No. 162/Mum/2019 Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.2993/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2011-12) M/S. Realstone Exports बिधम/ Ito-11(1)(2) Limited Room No.202, Aayakar Vs. C-204, 2Nd Floor, Vishal Bhavan, M. K. Marg, Apartments, Taki Road, Mumbai-400020. Tulij, Nallasopara (E), Thane, Maharashtra- 401209. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccr8504K (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Shri S. H. Usmani (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 22/09/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue & Cross-Objection (Co) Of The Assessee Are Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-18, Mumbai Dated 25.01.2017 For A.Y.2011- 12. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Revenue Are As Under: -

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri S. H. Usmani (DR)
Section 145(3)Section 68

Exports Ltd. during the year. According to AO, when the assessee has claimed that the income declared by it was on account of short term capital gains arising from the transaction of unquoted shares, then the onus was on the assessee to produce all the necessary and primary evidence

The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Shri Mohammed Dawood Sultan Abdul Kadar, Chennai

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

ITA 25/CHNY/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.25/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Shri Mohamed Dawood Sultan Abdul Income Tax, Circle 2, Kader, Kolikalpalayam, Thiruvarur, Trichy. Tamil Nadu 610 001. [Pan:Brdps5653L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Sankaralingam, Cit (Retd.) सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 29.08.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.10.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 1, Trichy, Dated 23.09.2020 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2016-17. The Only Issue Involved In This Appeal Is Relating To The Land Acquisition Compensation Under Compulsory Acquisition By The Government Is Exempt Or Not.

For Appellant: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCITFor Respondent: Shri S. Sankaralingam, CIT (Retd.)

This fact is not in disputed by the Assessing Officer. However, the Assessing Officer has treated the compensation received by the assessee as short term capital gains and accordingly taxed. On appeal, by following the Circular No. 36/2016 dated 25.10.2016 issued by the CBDT and also by considering the Proceedings ... dated 01.12.2015, the ld. CIT(A) has held that the entire land acquisition compensation received by the assessee is exempt, whether it is short term capital gains or long term capital gains. 4. Against the order passed by the ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is in 3 I.T.A. No. 25/Chny/21

Smt. P. Chitra, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw - 13 (2), Chennai

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

ITA 749/CHNY/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 749/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Respondent: Shri. P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 54F

holding is less than 36 months and :-4-: ITA. No: 749/Chny/2020 accordingly, profit derived from sale of land is assessable under the head short term capital gains. Therefore, rejected arguments of the assessee that she had purchased the property by way of allotment from M/s. Baskar ... same on 12.04.2012, and the period of holding is less than 36 months. Therefore, the AO has rightly assessed profit under the head short term capital gains. The CIT(A) had also rejected deduction u/s. 54F of the Act, because the deduction is available only in respect of transfer

ACIT 28 (2), Navi Mumbai vs. M/S Neel Siddhi Developers, Navi Mumbai

ITA 30/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.30/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) The Assistant Commissioner M/S Neel Siddhi Developers 2Nd Floor, The Emerald Plot No. Of Income Tax 28(2), 195/B, Sec-12, Vashi, Navi Mumbai बिधम/ Mumbai- 400 703 Room No.307, 3Rd Floor, Tower Vs. No.6, Vashi Railway Station Complex, Navi Mumbai- 400 703 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aagfn2744N (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Ms. Ritika AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri. Chetan M. Kacha, Sr. AR
Section 143(3)

ground of Revenue that the aforesaid transaction of sale of land be brought to tax not as "long term capital gain" but as "short term capital gain", and c. Challenging the order of CIT(A) upholding the action of the Assessecoffering business income by applying "project completion method" instead ... hold that the Assessee has rightly offered the gain on sale of Nagpur land under the head "Capital Gain" Long Term v. Short Term Capital gain: 18. The next ground of the Revenue is challenging the action of CIT (A) in upholding the capital gain on sale of aforesaid Nagpur

Jas Trading P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 9(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result we do not have any other option but to quash the reassessment proceedings

ITA 5850/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Kavitha Rajgopal, Jm Ito 9(2)(1) Jas Trading P. Ltd 6D/603, Prem Nagar, S.V. Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Rd Vs. Rd, Borivali (W) Mumbai- 400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Ito 9(2)(1) Jas Trading P. Ltd Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Rd 6D/603, Prem Nagar, S.V. Vs. Rd, Borivali (W) Mumbai- 400 020 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aaacj9837H Assessee By : Shri. Rahul Hakani. Revenue By : Shri. Achal Sharma (Cit Dr), Ms. Vranda U. Matkari Date Of Hearing: 25.07.2022. Date Of Pronouncement: 21.10.2022. O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. Rahul HakaniFor Respondent: Shri. Achal Sharma (CIT DR)
Section 133ASection 143Section 147Section 148Section 40A

Appeals) erred in remitting the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer to re-verify the facts and calculate the correct short term capital gains. ITA No. 5850/MUM/2014& 3603/MUM/2013 Jas Trading Pvt Ltd; A.Y. 2005-06, 2006-07 3. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming ... made. 1% of undisclosed commission for giving accommodation loan entries amounting to ₹ 4,47,650/- was also made anddisallowance of Short Term Capital Gain of ₹ 2,13,00,000/- was made to the total income of the assessee based on statement of Directors of the company. Accordingly, the assessment order

Jas Trading P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 9(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result we do not have any other option but to quash the reassessment proceedings

ITA 3603/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Kavitha Rajgopal, Jm Ito 9(2)(1) Jas Trading P. Ltd 6D/603, Prem Nagar, S.V. Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Rd Vs. Rd, Borivali (W) Mumbai- 400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Ito 9(2)(1) Jas Trading P. Ltd Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Rd 6D/603, Prem Nagar, S.V. Vs. Rd, Borivali (W) Mumbai- 400 020 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aaacj9837H Assessee By : Shri. Rahul Hakani. Revenue By : Shri. Achal Sharma (Cit Dr), Ms. Vranda U. Matkari Date Of Hearing: 25.07.2022. Date Of Pronouncement: 21.10.2022. O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. Rahul HakaniFor Respondent: Shri. Achal Sharma (CIT DR)
Section 133ASection 143Section 147Section 148Section 40A

Appeals) erred in remitting the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer to re-verify the facts and calculate the correct short term capital gains. ITA No. 5850/MUM/2014& 3603/MUM/2013 Jas Trading Pvt Ltd; A.Y. 2005-06, 2006-07 3. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming ... made. 1% of undisclosed commission for giving accommodation loan entries amounting to ₹ 4,47,650/- was also made anddisallowance of Short Term Capital Gain of ₹ 2,13,00,000/- was made to the total income of the assessee based on statement of Directors of the company. Accordingly, the assessment order

Ganesh Chhganlal Jain, Mumbai vs. CIT (A), NFAC, Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statisti...

ITA 2101/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Ganesh Chhganlal Jain, Cit (A) Nfac, Plot No. 899 Jassawala Wadi, Delhi. Juhu Tara Road, Juju, Vs. Andheri West, Mumbai-400049. Pan No. Aanpj 1550 D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Pramod Kumar Parida, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Sanyam Suresh Joshi, Dr Date Of Hearing : 12/10/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 18/10/2022

For Appellant: Mr. Pramod Kumar Parida, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Sanyam Suresh Joshi, DR
Section 143(1)Section 148

disallowing the Short Addition of Rs.2,10,483 by disallowing the Short Addition of Rs.2,10,483 by disallowing the Short-term capital gain on sale of scrip gain on sale of scrip - Learned First Appellate Authority (FAA) Learned First Appellate Authority (FAA) [erred in upholding [erred in upholding ... addition of accounted income (i.e. short the addition of accounted income (i.e. short- term capital gain of Rs.2,10,483) by the assessing officer based term capital gain of Rs.2,10,483) by the assessing officer based term capital gain of Rs.2,10,483) by the assessing officer based

M/S. Kwality Biscuits Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 11(5), Bangalore

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

ITA 675/BANG/2020[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Oct 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Baseganni, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT)
Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 55(2)

computation of total in shown in the long term capital gain arising out of the sale of land and also the short term capital gains from sale of depreciable assets (pg. 2 of PB). The materials based on which the AO has reopened the assessment i.e. the financial statements

Golden Era Plantations India Private Limited, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, Circle 1, Ooty

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

ITA 838/CHNY/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 838/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri. T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, CAFor Respondent: Shri. M. Rajan, CIT

case the learned CIT(A) is not justified in sustaining the addition of Rs.53,12,025/- made by the AO as short term capital gain. The details submissions made by the appellant on this aspect before the AO and the first appellate authority has not been considered ... property was fixed at Rs. 73,81,185/-. Therefore, by taking into account sale consideration as stated in the sale deed, computed short term capital gain of Rs. 53,12,025/- and made additions. 4. Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before

Hema Daljit Singh Chadha, Mumbai vs. ITO 23(1)(5), Mumbai

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

ITA 887/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalsmt. Hema Daljit Singh Chadha, Flat No. 204, Grant Canyon, Opp. Hdfc Bank, Pali Hill, Bandra West, Mumbai-400050. Pan: Acxpc0971B ...... Appellant Vs. Ito-23(1)(5), Room No. 114, Matru Mandir, 1St Floor, Tardeo Road, Mumbai-400007 ..... Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By : Sh. Tejinder Pal Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 14/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 10/10/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Tejinder Pal Singh, Sr. DR
Section 139(4)Section 2(47)Section 54

erred in treating the profit on sale of flat being flat No. 702B, 7 Floor, Acquarius Towers, Banra. Mumbai-400050 as Short Term Capital Gains instead of Long Term Capital Gains" The appellant prays that the order of the CIT(A) on the above grounds be set aside and that ... assessee only for a period of 31 months i.e., to be 3 ITA No. 887/Mum/2016-Smt. Hema Daljit Singh Chadha treated as short term capital gain. The assessee was asked as to why short-term capital gain arose from the said transaction shouldn’t be taxed in AY 2011-12. Assessee