“short term capital gains”

Capital GainsSection 2(42A)Section 2(42A)903 judgments

PRAJYOTH KUMAR ADI,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-4(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for\nstatistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 2078/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 270A

nabsence of the requisite details regarding the aforesaid sale transaction\nheld the entire amount of Rs.1,08,40,000/- as short term capital gains\n(STCG) on the sale of the subject property. Also, the AO initiated penalty\nproceedings under section 270A of the Act for under reporting of income

PRAJYOTH KUMAR ADI,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-4(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 2077/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: us: “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order of the Id. CIT(A) is erroneous both on facts and in law, and is passed in gross violations of principles of natural justice.

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 270A

absence of the requisite details regarding the aforesaid sale transaction held the entire amount of Rs.1,08,40,000/- as short term capital gains (STCG) on the sale of the subject property. Also, the AO initiated penalty proceedings under section 270A of the Act for under reporting of income

KAMINI VELMURUGAN,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI

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

ITA 478/MUM/2026[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalassessment Year : 2016-17 Kamini Velmurugan, Income Tax Officer, 18/369, Rajeshwari Chs, Ward-42(2)(3), Subhasnagar, Vs. Kautilya Bhavan, Mumbai-400071. Mumbai-400051. Pan : Agzpn9256A (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Ms. Sailee Gujarathi For Revenue : Shri Aditya Rai, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 04-03-2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 17-03-2026 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [„Ld.Cit(A)‟], Dated 19-11-2025, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17. 2. Briefly, The Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessment In This Case Was Completed U/S. 147 R.W.S. 144 R.W.S. 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 („The Act‟), Vide Order Dt. 12-12-2023, Wherein The Ao Has Brought To Tax A Sum Of Rs. 42,50,000/- As Short Term Capital Gains U/S. 45 Of The Act In Absence Of Any Explanation/Evidences Submitted By The Assessee In Respect Of Sale Of Immoveable Property As Well As Cost Of Acquisition. The 2 Assessee Thereafter Carried The Matter In Appeal Before The Ld.Cit(A), Who Has Since Dismissed The Appeal On Account Of Delayed Filing & Against The Said Order, The Assessee Is In Appeal Before Us.

For Appellant: Ms. Sailee GujarathiFor Respondent: Shri Aditya Rai, Sr.DR

Section 147Section 45Section 45(1)

vide order dt. 12-12-2023, wherein the AO has brought to tax a sum of Rs. 42,50,000/- as Short Term Capital Gains u/s. 45 of the Act in absence of any explanation/evidences submitted by the assessee in respect of sale of immoveable property as well as cost ... failed to deduct cost of acquisition of Rs. 42,50,000/- and proportionate stamp duty of Rs. 2,12,500/- to compute the Short Term Capital Gain and where the same is considered, there would not be any Short Term Capital Gain 3 and, therefore, the addition

AJIT SINGH,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 35(5), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for\nstatistical purposes

ITA 2691/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Section 147Section 148Section 250

{ "clean_text": "1\nIN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL\nDELHI BENCH “B”, DELHI\nBEFORE SH. S.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nAND

RAJASHREE ANNASAHEB PATIL,BELGAUM, KARNATAKA vs. KAR-W-(521)(1), BELAGAVI

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

ITA 486/PAN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji10 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G D Padmahshalii T A. No.486/Pan/2025 (A.Y.2018-19) Rajashree Annasaheb Patil, I T O, Vs Near Murasidda Temple, National E Assessment . Gandhi Galli Bhiradi, Centre, Raybag,Belgaum-591217, Delhi Karnataka. Pan No. Ejfpp4199R (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent)

Section 144

filed, the AO considering the information available on record has invoked the provisions of Sec. 144 of the Act and made addition of short term capital gain of Rs.65,00,000/- and assessed the total income of Rs.65,00,000/- and passed the order u/sec 144r.w.s147 r.w.s144B ... reasonable cause and the appeal was dismissed on the ground of delay. The assessee has raised grounds of appeal challenging the addition of short term capital gains on sale of agricultural land made by the A.O and there could be various reasons for no proper compliance. Whereas the affidavit

SHREE SAI HOSPITALITY,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), MUMBAI, THANE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 9019/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand V Mahadeokara.Y:2018-19 Shree Sai Hospitality Vs. Ito, Ward 2(1) C/32, Harias Dream Ashar It Park, 6Th Floor Park, Mira Bhayander Road No. 16Z, Wagle Road, Mira Road (E), Industraial Estate, Thane – Mira-Bhayandar – 400604. 401107. Pan/Gir No. Acyfs5492G (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 69

reassessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment ex parte under section 144 and made additions of Rs. 85,00,000/- as short-term capital gain and Rs. 85,00,000/- as unexplained investment under section 69, thereby assessing the total income at Rs. 1,70,00,000/-. 5. Aggrieved ... erred in in confirming the addition of Rs.85,00,000/- made by the Ld. AO. as alleged short term capital gains of the Act. The appellant, therefore, prays that the aforesaid addition of Rs.85,00,000/- be deleted. The appellant craves leave to alter, modify, amend or delete

MEENACHI SUNDARAM,TUTICORIN vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), TUTICORIN

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

ITA 3239/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George Kand Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3239/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Mr. Kumarasubramanian, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Aswathy, JCIT

Section 147Section 250

Since the assessee did not respond to the notices issued, the A.O passed an ex-parte order treating the entire sale proceeds as short term capital gains in the hands of the assessee. Aggrieved, the assessee filed further appeal before the CIT(A). Even before the CIT(A), the assessee ... purchase and sale deed of the impugned property to submit that the A.O is not correct in treating the entire amount received as short term capital gain without reducing the cost of purchase. Having pursued the materials on record and the facts peculiar to assessee's case, we are inclined

SIDDHI CHHAJED, RAJNANDGAON,RAJNANDGAON vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD RAJNANDAON, RAJNANDGAON

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 832/RPR/2025[2024-25]Status: HeardITAT Raipur03 Mar 2026AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

For Appellant: Shri Parasmal Chhajed, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 87A

been denied in the assessment year 2024-25. That in ITA No.831/RPR/2025 for A.Y.2024-25, the exemption claimed u/s. 87A of the Act against short term capital gains was Rs.25,000/- and in ITA No.832/RPR/2025 for A.Y.2024-25, the exemption claimed u/s. 87A of the Act against short term capital gains

TITIKSHA CHHAJED, RAJNANDGAON,RAJNANDGAON vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD RAJNANDGAON, RAJNANDGAON

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 831/RPR/2025[2024-25]Status: HeardITAT Raipur03 Mar 2026AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

For Appellant: Shri Parasmal Chhajed, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 87A

PIONEER INDEPENDENT TRUST ,BANGALORE vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU-2, BENGALURU

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

ITA 1143/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Huilgol, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Muthu Shankar, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 55(2)(ac)

notice issued u/s. 142(1) on 22/07/2022 in which in Q.No. 56, the AO had sought for the complete details of the short term capital gain / loss and long term capital gain / loss scriptwise or datewise. The assessee filed their reply dated 08/08/2022, and gave the details in respect ... said Q.No. 56 vide his reply in S.No. 45. The assessee also enclosed the details of the long term capital gains / short term capital gains by way of annexure – 16 of the submissions. Similarly, the AO in Q.No. 34 had sought for the reconciliation statements which was also filed

MUMMALANENI RAGHAVAN,GUNTUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, GUNTUR

ITA 628/VIZ/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam27 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Section 144BSection 147Section 194ASection 56

Ld.AO, which was confirmed by the\nLd.CIT(A) is incorrect and hence, the addition made by the Ld.AO\nrelating to the short term capital gains should be deleted.\n4.\nFrom the assessment order, it is observed that the\nassessment was completed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 and section 144B ... nappeal was filed before ITAT with grounds of appeal stating that the\nJoint Development Agreement did not go through and finally cancelled.\nHence, short term capital gains tax cannot be levied. The Ld.AR of the\nappellant has filed translated documents submitted before the lower\nauthorities as they were in local

MUMMALANENI RAGHAVAN,GUNTUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), GUNTUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 627/VIZ/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam27 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Itat, Stating That The Reopening Of Assessment U/S 147 Of The Act Was Based Merely On System Generated Information, Which Is Invalid & Without Any Tangible Material. In The Grounds Of Appeal, It Was Mentioned That The Assessment U/S 147 Is Beyond Time Limit Prescribed & Hence, The Proceedings Are Void-Ab-Initio.

Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 194ASection 56

grounds of appeal that the Joint Development Agreement entered into by the appellant with the builder was cancelled and hence the levy of short term capital gains tax by the Ld.AO, which was confirmed by the Ld.CIT(A) is incorrect and hence, the addition made by the Ld.AO relating ... short term capital gains should be deleted. 4. From the assessment order, it is observed that the assessment was completed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 and section 144B of the Act and the assessment order was passed on 22.03.2024. Short point for adjudication is, whether the assessee is liable for paying

PANKAJ AGARWAL,KANPUR vs. THE AO SPECIAL RANGE,, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 122/LKW/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow27 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2017-18 Pankaj Agarwal, 7/151, Ratan Vs. The Assessing Officer, Majestic, Opp. Sony World, Special Range, Kanpur- Swaroop Nagar, Kanpur-208002 208001 Pan: Abnpa4816E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Rakesh Garg, Adv Revenue By: Sh. R.R.N. Shukla, Addl Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 23.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 27.02.2026 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Dated 9.01.2024 Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Ao, Special Range, Kanpur, Passed Under Section 143(3) On 26.09.2019. 2. It Is Seen From The Record That The Appeal Is Delayed By 2 Days. However, Since The Date Of Filing Is Preceded By Saturday & Sunday, Wherein The Offices Of The Itat Were Closed, The Delay Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Admitted For Hearing. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under: - “1. Because The Cit(A) Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Treating The Loss Of Rs.42,17,895/- Being Loss On Account Of Trading In Derivatives As A Capital Loss As Against Business Loss Claimed By The Assessee, Which Finding Of The Ao Being Contrary To Facts, Bad In Law, The Addition Made Be Deleted.

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. R.R.N. Shukla, Addl CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 43(5)Section 44ASection 72Section 74

further held that short term capital loss of the current year could only be set off 3 A.Y. 2017-18 Pankaj Agarwal against short term capital gain during the year and therefore, he upheld the disallowance made by the AO. 5. The assessee has come in appeal before ... guidelines appear to have been reproduced, in an effort to show that derivatives can be considered to be a capital asset attracting short term capital gains or losses. To our mind, the issue in the present case is not whether derivatives could be regarded to be a short-term capital

SHEETAL RAJEEV GADRE,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 34(3)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 8534/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ashish ThakurdesaiFor Respondent: Shri Bhagirath Ramawat

Section 115BSection 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148ASection 151ASection 68

penny stock script was INR.16,25,210/- against which the Assessee received aggregate Sale Consideration of INR.17,60,264/-. The Assessee had earned short- term capital gains and has also suffered short-term capital loss while transacting in the alleged penny stock script. Thus, making net short term capital gains ... addition made by the Assessing Officer to INR.1,35,054/- to be brought to tax in the hands of the Assessee as Short-Term Capital Gains. Accordingly, the balance addition and differential tax demand stands deleted. 10. In view of the aforesaid, Ground No. 2 raised by the Assessee

KIRAN BALA GUPTA,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-10(1), HYDERABAD

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

ITA 341/HYD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.341/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13) Smt. Kiran Bala Gupta, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward-10(1), Pan: Ahvpg6893K Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Av Raghuram, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Ms. Aditi Goyal, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 04/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 20/02/2026 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Dated 20/12/2024, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (For Short, “Ao”) Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “The Act”), Dated 30/08/2022 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13. The Assessee Has Assailed The Impugned Order Of The Cit(A) On The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri AV Raghuram, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Aditi Goyal, Sr. AR

Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

dated 26/03/2015 determining the income of the assessee at Rs.3,39,05,130/- after making certain additions, viz., (i) recharacterization of short term capital gains (STCG) disclosed by the assessee from share transactions as business income: Rs.15,60,693/-; (ii) addition of the amount claimed by the assessee to have ... vide the order passed in ITA No.0110/2015-16/CIT(A)-6/16- 17, dated 20/10/2016 accepted the assesse’s claim of short term capital gain (STCG) of Rs.15,60,696/- on sale of shares but upheld the other additions/disallowances made by the AO. 4. Aggrieved with the order

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. MANIKANDAN, CHENNAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2986/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Section 147Section 2Section 2(14)Section 2(47)Section 250Section 45Section 45(3)

partner\nviz., M/s Elior India Catering LLP, deeming such transfer as defined in\nSec.2(47) and taxing the same u/s 45(3) as Short Term Capital Gains.\n3. In the relied upon decision of the jurisdictional ITAT in the case of\nGokulakrishna in ITA No.1088/Chny/2025, the Tribunal made a reference ... No.2986/Chny/2025\nManikandan\nwithin the definition section 2 (47) of the Act. Accordingly, the A.O treated\nthe entire amount received by the assessee as short term capital gains in the\nhands of the assessee. Aggrieved, the assessee filed further appeal before the\nCIT(A).\n3. The CIT(A) gave relief

BANG EQUITY BROKING PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-CIRCLE 4(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7504/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member), SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Anant N. Pai, CAFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui (SR DR)

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 32Section 55

treating the long term capital gains of Rs. 1,16,18,632/- on sale of the Appellant's shares in BSE Ltd as short term capital gains of Rs. 5,98,32,250/- in the assessment order. This treatment of the long term capital gains as short term capital gains ... filed an appeal before us. The learned AR contended that the learned AO assessed the capital gain on sale of BSE shares as short-term capital gain amount of rupees 5,98,32,250/-. The treatment of capital gain was on the ground that the assessee had claimed depreciation

M/S STANCE CONSUMER ELECTRONICS PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC-32, DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee for AY 2017-18 in ITA No

ITA 2792/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalita Nos.2791 & 2792/Del/2025 (Assessment Yearss 2016-17 & 2017-18)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

assessee was assessed at Rs.1,58,10,662/-. The AO further made protective addition of Rs. 1,45,00,000/- as short term capital gains with the observation that it will become substantive addition in case addition u/s 68 is deleted by the appellate authorities. 14. Against the said order ... dated 29.03.2025, has partly allowed the appeal of the assessee, wherein both the additions u/s 68 were confirmed and protective addition made as short term capital gains was deleted. Stance Consumer Electronics Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT 15. Aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT(A), assessee preferred the present appeal

M/S STANCE CONSUMER ELECTRONICS PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC-32, DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee for AY 2017-18 in ITA No

ITA 2791/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalita Nos.2791 & 2792/Del/2025 (Assessment Yearss 2016-17 & 2017-18)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

HEMANT DAHYALAL BHATT,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 6(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee for assessment years 2012–13 to 2016–17 are allowed, and appeals for assessment years 2017–18 and 2018–19 are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7913/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 10(14)Section 10(14)(ii)Section 144Section 153ASection 24

Income Tax Act, 1961. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the addition of INR 41,693 comprising of short-term capital gains 2015-16 The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the addition of INR 15,000 on account of medical allowance ... Income Tax Act, 1961. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the addition of INR 54,809 comprising of short-term capital gains under the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2016-17 The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the addition

Showing 1–20 of 903 · Page 1 of 46

...