← 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

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

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 7912/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

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

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 7911/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

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

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 7910/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

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

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 7909/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

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

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 7908/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

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

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 7907/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

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

Gaurav Vinimay Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 8(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 2306/KOL/2025[205-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Feb 2026

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 50DSection 56(2)Section 56(2)(viia)

invoking the provisions of section 56(2)(viia) of the Act and further, added a sum of ₹2,03,68,000/- as Short term Capital Gains by invoking the provisions of section 50D of the Act and assessed the total income of the assessee

Ramesh Baburao Kadam, Navi Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 42(3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 5890/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalassessment Year : 2016-17 Ramesh Baburao Kadam, Income Tax Officer, Suyog Samuh Co-Op. Hsg. Soc., Ward-42(3)(2), B 704, Sec 8, Plot No. 41 Vs. Mumbai. Sanpada, Navi Mumbai-400705. Pan : Azxpk7228G (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Kushal Gada (Virtually Present) For Revenue : Shri Annavaram Kosuri Date Of Hearing : 29-01-2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 09-02-2026 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M :

For Appellant: Shri Kushal GadaFor Respondent: Shri Annavaram Kosuri
Section 147

brought to tax an amount of Rs. 1,35,58,800/- being the amount received on sale of immoveable property as Short Term Capital Gains and assessed income was accordingly determined at Rs. 1,35,58,800/-. The assessee thereafter 2 carried the matter in appeal before the Ld.CIT

Ashwitha Reddy Baddam, Nizamabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Nizamabad

ITA 1066/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

scrutiny and during the course of assessment proceedings, it was seen that the assessee sold two flats for Rs.26,88,000/- and computed short term capital gains of Rs.2,01,030/- after claiming cost of acquisition at Rs.700 per SFT for super built up area and cost of acquisition ... Ld.CIT(A) for the reasons stated in their appellate order dated 26.12.2024, upheld the additions made by the A.O. towards computation of short-term capital gains from sale of property. - 8. Shri A.V.Raghuram, the learned counsel for the assessee has submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) erred in sustaining the additions

Mohan Reddy Gaddam, Nizamabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Nizamabad

ITA 1065/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

scrutiny and during the course of assessment proceedings, it was seen that the assessee sold two flats for Rs.26,88,000/- and computed short term capital gains of Rs.2,01,030/- after claiming cost of acquisition at Rs.700 per SFT for super built up area and cost of acquisition ... Ld.CIT(A) for the reasons stated in their appellate order dated 26.12.2024, upheld the additions made by the A.O. towards computation of short-term capital gains from sale of property. - 8. Shri A.V.Raghuram, the learned counsel for the assessee has submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) erred in sustaining the additions

Gaddam Mohan Reddy, Nizamabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Nizamabad

ITA 1064/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

scrutiny and during the course of assessment proceedings, it was seen that the assessee sold two flats for Rs.26,88,000/- and computed short term capital gains of Rs.2,01,030/- after claiming cost of acquisition at Rs.700 per SFT for super built up area and cost of acquisition ... Ld.CIT(A) for the reasons stated in their appellate order dated 26.12.2024, upheld the additions made by the A.O. towards computation of short-term capital gains from sale of property. - 8. Shri A.V.Raghuram, the learned counsel for the assessee has submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) erred in sustaining the additions

Gaddam Mohan Reddy, Nizamabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Nizamabad

ITA 1063/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

scrutiny and during the course of assessment proceedings, it was seen that the assessee sold two flats for Rs.26,88,000/- and computed short term capital gains of Rs.2,01,030/- after claiming cost of acquisition at Rs.700 per SFT for super built up area and cost of acquisition ... Ld.CIT(A) for the reasons stated in their appellate order dated 26.12.2024, upheld the additions made by the A.O. towards computation of short-term capital gains from sale of property. - 8. Shri A.V.Raghuram, the learned counsel for the assessee has submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) erred in sustaining the additions

Income Tax Officer, Coimbatore vs. Acl Industries Limited, Coimbatore

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

ITA 2592/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K (Vice President), SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Shiva Srinivas, CITFor Respondent: None
Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

show-cause notice isused, assessee sought more time to comply. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO noticed that assessee claimed Short Term Capital Gains (STCG) on sale of immovable property (property sold on 02.12.2015). The assessee had calculated the STCG at Rs.2,68,84,985/- where ... which was the written down value as on 01.04.2015. Accordingly, the AO disallowed loss of Rs.3,92,54,617/- in computing the short-term capital gains on sale of immovable property. Further, AO noticed :- 3 -: that as per P&L account, assessee claimed total turnover of Rs.20,33,800/-, opening

Bhushan Vasant Parelkar, Mumbai vs. Ward 41(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6322/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2013-14 Bhushan Vasant Parelkar Income Tax Officer, A-204 Saikripa, Navghar Ward 41(2)(1), Road, Mulund East S.O, Vs Mumbai Mumbai - 400081 (Pan: Akdpp6556D) Appellant Respondent Present For: Appellant By : Shri Dharan Gandhi, Advocate Respondent By : Shri Bhagirath Ramawat, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 21.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.01.2026 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Vide Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2025-26/1079866363(1), Dated 22.08.2025, Passed Against The Assessment Order By Ito, Ward-41(2)(1),, U/S. 147 Of The Income-Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 31.05.2023 For Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: “The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Action Of Ld. Ao Of Reopening The Assessment U/S 147 Although The Reopening Is Time Barred & Hence Bad In Law. Bhushan Vasant Parelkar Ay 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Dharan Gandhi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Bhagirath Ramawat, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)(b)Section 50C

realized. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming action of Ld. AO of adding Rs. 41,69,000/- as Short Term Capital Gains. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming action of Ld. AO of not allowing the exemption w/s 54F for investment in new property

Ladderup Finance Limited, Mumbai vs. Circle 14(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 7404/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarladderup Finance Circle 14(1)(1), Limited Mumbai 1St Floor Hallmark Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Business Plaza, Mumbai-400 020 Gurunanak Hospital Road, Bandra (East), Mumbai- 400051 Pan/Gir No. Aaacl0882G (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rushabh Mehta Revenue By Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 27.01.2026

Section 10(34)Section 10(38)Section 111ASection 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)

total income of Rs. 73,59,060/-.The case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS for the following reasons: i. Large short term capital gains declared under section 111A, ii. Receipt of large value foreign remittance as reported in Form 15CA, and iii. Sale of property reported in Form ... proceedings completed by the learned Assessing Officer are beyond jurisdiction since the case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS having reasons “large short term capital gains declared u/s 111A, receipt of large value foreign remittance (Form 15CA) and Sale of property reported in Form 26QB

Fort Canning Credit Investments Pte. Ltd., Singapore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax (International Taxation) - 2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2104/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jan 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2022-23 Fort Canning Investments Assistant Commissioner Of Pte. Ltd. Income-Tax (International 260 Orchard Road, #14-02 Taxation) - 2(3)(1) Vs. The Heeren, Singapore, Mumbai Singapore – 238855 (Pan: Aaccf9284G) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2022-23 Fort Canning Credit Assistant Commissioner Of Investments Pte. Ltd. Income-Tax (International 260 Orchard Road #14-02 Taxation) - 2(3)(1) Vs. The Heeren, Singapore, Mumbai Singapore – 238855 (Pan: Aadcf7866R) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Dhanesh Bafna, Ms. Priyanka Agarwala, Ms.Hirali Desai, Ms. Nidhi Agarwal & Shri Yogesh Malpani, Cas Revenue : Shri Satya Pal Kumar, Cit Dr & Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 29.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.01.2026 Fort Canning Investments Pte. Ltd. & Fort Canning Credit Investments Pte. Ltd. Ay 2022-23

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh BafnaFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar, CIT DR and Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 234BSection 270A

Bharti shareholders in the ratio of 1:14. Assessee sold its rights entitlement on these shares held by it, giving rise to short term capital gains of Rs.3,62,26,442/- which was claimed as exempt under Article 13(5) under India-Singapore DTAA. Contrary to the treatment adopted ... value of rights shares is nothing more than the value carved out from the existing equity shares. It was thus, held that short term capital gains on sale of right entitlement would not be covered under Article 13(5), instead would be covered under Article 13(4B) of the India

Fort Canning Investments Pte. Ltd., Singapore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax (International Taxation) - 2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2103/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jan 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2022-23 Fort Canning Investments Assistant Commissioner Of Pte. Ltd. Income-Tax (International 260 Orchard Road, #14-02 Taxation) - 2(3)(1) Vs. The Heeren, Singapore, Mumbai Singapore – 238855 (Pan: Aaccf9284G) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2022-23 Fort Canning Credit Assistant Commissioner Of Investments Pte. Ltd. Income-Tax (International 260 Orchard Road #14-02 Taxation) - 2(3)(1) Vs. The Heeren, Singapore, Mumbai Singapore – 238855 (Pan: Aadcf7866R) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Dhanesh Bafna, Ms. Priyanka Agarwala, Ms.Hirali Desai, Ms. Nidhi Agarwal & Shri Yogesh Malpani, Cas Revenue : Shri Satya Pal Kumar, Cit Dr & Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 29.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.01.2026 Fort Canning Investments Pte. Ltd. & Fort Canning Credit Investments Pte. Ltd. Ay 2022-23

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh BafnaFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar, CIT DR and Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 234BSection 270A

Bharti shareholders in the ratio of 1:14. Assessee sold its rights entitlement on these shares held by it, giving rise to short term capital gains of Rs.3,62,26,442/- which was claimed as exempt under Article 13(5) under India-Singapore DTAA. Contrary to the treatment adopted ... value of rights shares is nothing more than the value carved out from the existing equity shares. It was thus, held that short term capital gains on sale of right entitlement would not be covered under Article 13(5), instead would be covered under Article 13(4B) of the India

Smt. Shree Jain, Mumbai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle -5(2), Mumbai

In the result, we hold that

ITA 2565/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Bijayananda Prusethsmt. Shree Jain, 17/1, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Anurag Ali Asker Rod, Off. Tax, Central Circle-5(2), Mumbai. Chunningham Road, 1/24, Room No.634, Aayakar Bhawan, Marsh Bangalore-560052. Karve Road, Churchgate, Mumbai- 400020. Pan/Gir No:Aarpj4573A (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)

erred in confirming the addition of 4,56,13,937/-made by the AO to the income of the Appellant on account of Short term capital gains on the basis of invalid Sale Deed dated 7-8-2015 entered between 1 ITA No.2565/MUM/2025/AY 2016-17 Smt. Shree Jain ... accept the explanation of the assessee and observed that she had stated many things to avoid short-term capital gain on sale of the impugned land. The AO also observed that in the sale deed dated 07.08.2015, the assessee has acknowledged sale consideration of Rs.8.96 crore as full and final

Mr. Dollar Chunilal Modi, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 42(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 7189/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai ()**

Section 139Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 50Section 54F

erred in law and on facts in upholding an addition of Rs.25,59,170-made by the Assessing Officer as Short term capital gains arising on assets subjected to Section 50 was not allowed for deduction u/s 54F on the grounds that the assessee had failed to furnish the deduction ... block of assets and held that the gains arising from the sale of the asset were required to be taxed as short-term capital gains, on the ground that the block of assets had ceased to exist. The Ld.AO, therefore, computed the short-term capital gain on the sale