← All Phrases

“short term capital gains”

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

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

Leading authorities on short term capital gains

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 gains

Hreyansh Vasundhara Family Trust, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(1), Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1793/PUN/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1793/Pun/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2021-22 Hreyansh Vasundhara Family Trust, S. No. 1A, F-1, Irani Market Compound, Yerwada, Pune – 411006 Vs. Ito, Ward-7(1), Pune Pan : Aabth8220Q अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri C.H. Naniwadekar Department By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 18-06-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 26-06-2025 आदेश / Order Per Astha Chandra, Jm : The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 18.07.2024 Of The Ld. Additional/Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Vadodara [“Addl./Jcit(A)"] Pertaining To Assessment Year ("Ay") 2021-22. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : "In The Fact & The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Addl/Joint Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) -(A)2 Vadodara, Erred In Confirming The Variance In The Intimation U/S 143(1) Made By Cpc In Respect Of The Rate Of Surcharge & Erred: 1. In Not Adjudicating & Hence Confirming That The Ao Cpc Has Power To Vary The Rate Of Surcharge While Processing The Return U/S 143(1). 2. In Holding That In The Case Of The Appellant Provisions Of Section 167B Rws 2(29C) Are Applicable & Therefore The Appellant Is Subjected To Taxation At The Highest Slab Of Income Tax (Including Surcharge) As Applicable For The Given Ay Which Is 37% Surcharge In The Case Of The Appellant For The Given Ay.

For Appellant: Shri C.H. NaniwadekarFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 111ASection 143(1)Section 167BSection 2

appellant of Rs.4,85,82,050/- includes income of Rs.4,77,46,882/- on which maximum surcharge is 15 per cent (viz. short-term capital gains u/s 111A and dividend income) as per the proviso in Paragraph A of Part I of the First Schedule to the Finance ... levied at the rate of 15% on income of Rs.4,77,46,882/- on which maximum surcharge is 15 per cent (viz. short-term capital gains u/s 111A and dividend income) as per the proviso in Paragraph A of Part I of the First Schedule to the Finance

Nirav Trust, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2987/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalassessment Year : 2021-22 Nirav Trust, Deputy Commissioner Of 2Nd Floor, Income Tax, Bajaj Bhawan, Vs. Circle-17(1), Jamnalal Bajaj Marg, Kautilya Bhavan, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400021. Pan : Aactn7869E (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri M.A. Gohel For Revenue : Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui Date Of Hearing : 17-06-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 19-06-2025 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Addl/Jcit(A)-4, Delhi [„Ld.Cit(A)‟], Dated 25-03-2025, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2021-22, Wherein The Assessee Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri M.A. GohelFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui
Section 143(1)Section 208Section 234CSection 234C(1)

erroneous, unjustified and unreasonable. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the substantial part of short-term capital gains has arisen in the month of March 2021 i.e. after 15-12-2020 and hence, the same is not to be considered for computing interest under Section 234C ... instalment of Advance tax payable prior to the transaction of such short-term capital gains. The Appellant prays that the erroneous interest charged under Section 234C may kindly be revised and restricted to Rs. 7,590/- as the same is contrary to the law and unwarranted. The appellant hereby reserves