← 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

Mr. Lalitkumar Thanmaljain, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 26 (2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4915/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalemr. Lalitkumar Vs. Ito, Ward – 26(2)(1) Thanmal Jain, Pratyaksha Kar Bhavan, A/705, Bawa Tower Bkc, Bandra East Chs, Narayan Nagar, Mumbai -400051. Chunabatti, Mumbai-400022. Pan/Gir No. Aacpj9078M Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri Nitesh Jain.Ar Respondent By : Shri Manoj Sinha.Dr Date Of Hearing 28.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 29.07.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-38, Mumbai Passed U/S 143(3) & 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Jain.ARFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Sinha.DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

disregarding the amount of purchase price The addition of & 11,00,000/- was made by the learned Assessing Officer under the head short term capital gain instead of long term capital gain. The said ground was not pressed by the Assessee in the appeal filed before ... found that the assessee has not submitted proper information of flat and made the addition of Rs. 11 lakhs on account of short term capital gains. (v) Since the assessee has not filed satisfactory explanations in respect of loans and advances and the assessee must have incurred certain interest expenditure

Mukesh K Shah HUF, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle-29(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 4902/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vp & Shri Amit Shukla, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 4902/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Dcit Circle-29(2), Mukesh K Shah Huf R. No. 202, C-10, 2Nd B-12, Chandra Niwas, Above बिधम/ Floor, Pratayaksha Lijjat Papad, Mulund (West), Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Vs. Mumbai-400 080. Complex, Bandra (East) Mumbai-400 051 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaghs3814L (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Ms. Radha Halbe, Ld. Ar प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri T. Shankar, Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 06.06.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 27.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Impugned Order Dated 10.05.2019, Passed By Ld. Cit(A)-40, Mumbai For The Quantum Of Assessment U/S 143(3) For Ay 2013-14. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds:-

For Appellant: Ms. Radha Halbe, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri T. Shankar, Ld. DR
Section 143(3)

I.T.A. No. 4902/Mum/2019 Mukesh K. Shah HUF Cost of Acquisition (2,44,360/-) (2,44,360/-) Short Term Capital Gain 16,90,640/- 18,36,890/- Difference to be taxed [18,36,890- 1,46,250/- 16,90,640] Difference actually taxed ... Amount erroneously taxed doubly [2,81,250-1,46,250] 10. The AO has worked out the short term capital gain of Rs. 18,36,890/- and while working out the differential capital gain, has wrongly taken short term capital gain declared by the assessee

DCIT Cir 3(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M. Visvesvaraya Industrial Research & Development Centre, Mumbai

Accordingly, the grounds raised by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 3697/MUM/2016[1989-90]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jul 2022AY 1989-90

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 3697 & 3698/Mum/2016 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 1989-90 & 1990-91) M/S M. Visvesvarya Dcit(A)-3(2)(1), R. No. 608, 6Th Floor, Industrial Research & Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, बिधम/ Development Centre Mumbai-400 005 31St Floor, Centre 1, Cuffe Vs. Parade, Colaba, Mumbai – 400 005 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aabcm0996K (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Shri Nimesh Yadav, Ld. Dr अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Firoze B. Andhyarujina & Shri Maneck F. Andhyarujina , Ld. Ars सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 21.06.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 19.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeals Have Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Impugned Order Of Even Date 22.02.2016, Passed By Ld. Cit(A)-8, Mumbai For The Ay 1989-90 & 1990-91. 2

For Respondent: Shri Firoze B. Andhyarujina &
Section 220(2)

income from business being in nature of salami/premium. Alternatively it was held by the Ld. CIT (A) that the receipts were taxable as short term capital gain as assessee had converted its stock into assets during the current year and consideration received on lease premises was capital receipts

M/S. Nicholas Piramal India Ltd, Mumbai vs. The ACIT Cur 7(1)

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

ITA 769/MUM/2008[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2022AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanpiramal Enterprises Ltd Vs. Acit, Circle – 7(1) (Formerly Known As Aayakar Bhavan Piramal Healthcare Ltd) Mumbai – 400020. (Before Known As Nicholas Piramal Ind) Piramal Tower, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400013. Pan/Gir No. : Aaacn4538P Appellant .. Respondent Dcit, Circle – 7(1) Vs. Piramal Enterprises Ltd Aayakar Bhyavan (Formerly Known As Mumbai – 400 020. Piramal Healthcare Ltd) (Before Known As Nicholas Piramal Ind) Piramal Tower, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400 013. Pan/Gir No. : Aaacn4538P Assessee By : Mr.Ronak Doshi & Ms.Manshi Padhiyar.Ar Revenue By : Mr.S.N.Kabra.Dr

For Appellant: Mr.Ronak Doshi &For Respondent: Mr.S.N.Kabra.DR
Section 143(3)Section 145Section 32Section 35Section 80

correct but the AO has restricted @ 25% rate and disallowed the excess claim of Rs.69,02,148/-.(iii) the A.O. calculated the Short term capital gains of computers of Rs.1,72,61,062/-(iv) Since the computer block of Assets ceased to exist, the depreciation claimed on computers of Rs17 ... computer software be allowed 60% as correctly claimed by the Appellant. GROUND II: ITA No. 769 & 1954/Mum/2008 M/s Nicholas Piramal India Ltd, Mumbai. Short term capital gain on sale of computers: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, CIT (A) erred in confirming

Shri. Uday Abhaji Sathe, Dombivali vs. ITO Ward 3 (3), Kalyan

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

ITA 6545/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 6545/मुं/2019 ("न.व 2010-11) Shri Uday Abhaji Sathe, 4/3 Runanu Bandh, 4Th Lane, Rajaji Path, Dombivali East – 421 201. Pan: Aaops-2170-F ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Income Tax Officer , Ward 3(3)-Kalyan, Rani Mansion, 2Nd Floor, Murbad Road, Kalyan – 421 301. ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri N.A. Kulkarni ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Kishore Dhule सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 24/06/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 24/06/2022

For Appellant: Shri N.A. KulkarniFor Respondent: Shri Kishore Dhule
Section 44A

dismissing the appeal of assessee on merits. The ld.Departmental Representative submitted that the assessee had sold property for Rs.53.00 lacs. While computing short term capital gains on sale of property it was noted by the Assessing Officer that assessee has shown addition in asset amounting to Rs.21.00 lacs during ... year. However, no documentary evidence was placed on record to substantiate the addition. The assessee has offered less short term capital gain as has been observed in the assessment order and upheld by the CIT(A). However, with regard to additional evidence filed by the assessee the ld.Departmental Representative