← 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

Harish Subramaniam Iyer, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT -27, Navi Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by assessee is allowed

ITA 873/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं.873/मुं/2021 ("न.व. 2016-17) Harish Subramaniam Iyer, A-10, Sidhpura Industrial Estate, Lbs Marg, Ghatkopar (West), Mumbai 400 086 Pan: Aaapi-3669-R ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax 27, 401, 4Th Floor, Tower No.6, Vashi Rly. Station Commercial Complex, Vashi, Navi Mumbai 400 703 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Vijay Mehta ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Azhar Zain सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 02/02/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 02/05/2022 आदेश/ Order

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Azhar Zain
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

details or ITR of partnership firm examined by the Assessing Officer. (ii) Inconsistency in respect of nature of capital asset on which short term capital gains was claimed. No cross verification of bills and bank statement. No third party enquiry by the Assessing Officer. (iii) Short term capital gains ... placed on record would not make the assessment erroneous. 7. The second issue raised by the PCIT in the revision proceedings is short term capital gains from sale of gold bars. The ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee pointed that the assessee had purchased gold bars. The purchase invoice

Simplex Papers Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT (Cemtra)-2, Mumbai

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

ITA 174/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalesimplex Papers Ltd Vs. Pr. Cit (Central) – 2 2Nd Floor, Simplex Mills 1920, Air India Bldg Compound, 30, Nariman Point, Keshavrao Khadye Mumbai – 400 021. Marg, Sant Gadge Maharaj Chowk, Mumbai – 400 011. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcs6910M Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Satish Modi.Ar Respondent By : Shri Ajit K. Srivastava.Dr Date Of Hearing 24.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 25.04.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Principle Commissioner Of Income Tax(Pr.Cit)(Central-2)Mumbai Passed U/S 263 Of The Act, 1961. At The Time Of Hearing, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That There Is A Delay Of 12 Days In Simplex Papers Ltd, Mumbai. Filing The Appeal Before The Hon’Ble Tribunal & Filed The Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay. We Find The Facts Mentioned In The Affidavit Are Reasonable & Accepted. Contra, Ld. Dr Has No Specific Objections. Accordingly The Delay Is Condoned & Admit The Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri. Satish Modi.ARFor Respondent: Shri Ajit K. Srivastava.DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

years and later on passing the order on the basis that such brought forward business losses would not be set off against short term capital gain. 5. The Ld, Pr. CIT erred in law and on facts in invoking provisions of section 263 in respect of the allowability ... business losses against short term capital gain arising from sale of depreciable assets by ignoring the well settled legal position that such set off of loss is allowable. 6. The above grounds are independent and without prejudice to one another. 7, Your appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend

DCIT, CC-5(4), Mumbai vs. Shri Rajenderkumar Miglani, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 2925/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Apr 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 2925/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Dcit, Central Circle-5(4) बिधम/ Rajindrakumar Miglani Room No.1927, 19Th Floor, Uttam House, 69, P „Dmello Vs. Air India Building, Nariman Road, Carnac Bunder, Point, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400009. & Cross Objection No.20/Mum/2021 आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 2925/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Rajindrakumar Miglani बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-5(4) Room No.1927, 19Th Floor, Uttam House, 69, P „Dmello Vs. Road, Carnac Bunder, Air India Building, Nariman Mumbai-400009. Point, Mumbai-400021. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabpm7288D (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Sanjeev Kashyp (Dr) Assessee By: Shri K Shivaram & Rahul Hakani सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 30/03/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25/04/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue As Well As Assessee Have Filed The Above Mentioned Appeal As Well As Cross-Objection Against The Order Dated 25.02.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-53, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2010-11. C.O. No.20/Mum2021 A.Y.2010-11

For Appellant: Shri K Shivaram & Rahul HakaniFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Kashyp (DR)
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

same was taxable gain in the hands of assessee. After the reply of the assessee, the said sale amount was treated as Short Term Capital Gain and accordingly taxed. The total income of the assessee was assessed to the tune of Rs.13,15,47,000/-. Feeling aggrieved, the assessee filed ... abated in terms of section 153A. The AO has lost jurisdiction to make regular assessment and make addition on account of short term capital gain on sale of agricultural land. The relevant facts were quoted as following: 4 C.O. No.20/Mum2021 A.Y.2010-11 Date of filing of return

M/S. Rama Recycling Pvt. Tld., Mumbai vs. DCIT Cent. Cir.- 2, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1102/MUM/2006[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Apr 2022AY 2001-2002

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble & M/S. Rama Recycling Pvt. Ltd., V. Dcit – Central Circle – 2 1711, World Trade Centre – 1 Cgo Building Cufe Parade, Mumbai – 400005 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aaacr1794F (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S. Rama Scrap Recycling Pvt. Ltd., V. Acit – Central Circle – 2 181, Maker Tower “E" Cgo Building, 9Th Floor Cuffe Parade, Mumbai - 400005 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aaacr1794F (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit – Central Circle – 3(3) V. M/S. Rama Recycling (P) Ltd., Room No. 609, 6Th Floor {Formerly Rama Scrap Recycling Pvt. Ltd.,} 181, Maker Tower “E" Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Cuffe Parade, Mumbai - 400005 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aaacr1794F (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri C.T. Mathews
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)

view taken by the AO in assessing surplus of Rs.43,44,700/- realised on surrender of rights to acquire the flats as “Short term capital gains" as against "Long term capital gains" shown by the Appellant. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the flats were surrendered after ... ground is reproduced below: - “1. The CIT(A) ought to have deleted the addition of Rs.43,44,700 made on account of alleged Short Term Capital Gains made by the AO on protective basis 4 ITA NO. 1102/MUM/2006 (A.Y: 2001-02) and other M/s. Rama Recycling