← 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

Nrupal Nareshchandra Raja, Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT, Ahmedabad-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 839/AHD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay R Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT DR
Section 144BSection 147Section 263

entries; whereas in the case of the Appellant, the Appellant had dealt in listed equity share of Dhvanil Chemicals Ltd and offered whatever short term capital gain he had earned during the year under consideration in his return of income, and thus, there was neither any income escaping assessment ... impugned year under consideration, the assessee had not earned any exempt Long term capital gains, but in fact the assessee had earned the short- term capital gains amounting to ₹ 2,01,125/-, on which taxes have been paid by the assessee. In this connection the counsel for the assessee drew

Shuvro Chattaraj, Kolkata vs. PCIT, Burdwan

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 226/KOL/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Jain, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Subhendu Datta, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54E

setting aside the assessment order on ground of capital gain arising from transfer of a long term asset of year 1998 as short term capital gain. 5. That the Ld. Pr. CIT erred in law to deny the deduction u/s 54E and 54F in impugned year on the ground that ... Thirty eight) lakh in AY 2013-14 as long term capital gains and Rs. 24 (Twenty five) lakh in AY 2014-15 as short term capital gains. The assessee paid taxes as applicable in both the years. 6. On 26.09.2014, the assessee entered into a fresh Joint Development Agreement

Venkataraju Chandrashekar, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1)(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 1351/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, A.RFor Respondent: Sri V. Parithivel, D.R
Section 144Section 147Section 54Section 69

case. 3. Without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT[A] erred in sustaining the addition of Rs.1,21,50,000/- made as short term capital gains on account of sale of two immovable properties being the gross sale consideration received by the appellant and other co-owners ... learned CIT [A] ought to have appreciated that the properties sold were long-term capital assets and therefore, the assessment of short-term capital gains on the sale of these properties was erroneous under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case. 3.3 The learned

Admire Hotels India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-5(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1144/MUM/2024[2006-07]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Haridas Bhat, A/RFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr. D/R
Section 131

erred in confirming the order passed by the AO thereby confirming the action of the AO in treating the short term capital gain of Rs. 17,80,156/- as undisclosed income. 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee is in the business of hospitality ... were issued and served upon the assessee. During the course of the scrutiny assessment proceedings, the AO noticed that the assessee has shown short term capital gain on transfer of shares of Maruti Infrastructure Ltd. and Sundaram Multi Pap Limited, as under:- 3.1. The assessee furnished complete details relating

Amrita Abhishek Doshi, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 19(1), Mumbai

ITA 1353/MUM/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Aug 2024AY 2014-2015
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 68

appeal: - “1. The learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of the assessing officer in treating the long-term capital gains and short term capital gains accruing to the appellant as non-genuine only on the basis of general finding of Directorate of Investigation and various statements recorded ... short, LTCG) amount of Rs.1,55,89,138/- as exempted income under section 10(38) of the Act and offered tax in short term capital gains (STCG) amount of Rs.64,35,247/-. The total sale proceeds credited in the books of account of the assessee in the form of LTCG

Ganesan Kannan, Thoothukudi vs. Iti, International Taxation Ward, Thoothukudi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 698/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.: 698/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sanjay Gandhi, Addl. CIT
Section 144C(1)Section 144C(8)Section 147Section 148Section 148A

Dispute Resolution Panel- 2 erred in assuming jurisdiction under Section 144C(8) and consequently erred in enhancing / re- computing the computation of Short Term Capital Gains for the 1st and the 2nd property, computed by the Assessing Officer at Rs.90,86,561/- reported by the appellant as Long Term Capital ... Resolution Panel - 2 failed to appreciate that having not put on notice the appellant on the proposal to enhance the taxable income of Short Term Capital Gains as computed by the Assessing Officer in the draft assessment order, the consequential directions issued by them should accordingly be reckoned

Brahmar Cellulose Products Private Limited, Chennai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee dismissed

ITA 189/CHNY/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.189/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2012-13 Brahmar Cellulose Products Private Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Limited, Ameen Manors, S1 & S2, Income Tax, Second Floor, B Block, No. 138, Corporate Circle 1(2), Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai. Chennai 600 034. [Pan: Aadcb3888M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : None ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 06.08.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.08.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 148

Anita, Addl. CIT drew our attention to page 2 of the assessment order and argued that the assessee admitted net short term capital gains of ₹.14,61,66,217/-, which is the net figure by considering the STCG on sale of depreciable assets to an extent ... herein below for ready reference: 9.2.1 Briefly the facts of the case is that in the return of income filed the appellant declared Short Term Capital Gain of Rs.14,61,66,217/- on account of sale of depreciable asset against which Short Term Capital Loss on sale of shares

Anand Kumar Chaurasia, Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-27, New Delhi, Delhi

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for

ITA 3852/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Naveen Chandraिनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153DSection 68

self- contradictory inasmuch as initially the CIT(A) went into the question of determination whether sale transaction resulted in long-term or short term capital gains, thereby accepting the transaction as such, but at the later stage holding, by taking a complete U turn, the transaction itself

Anand Kumar Chaurasia, Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-27, New Delhi, Delhi

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for

ITA 3842/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Naveen Chandraिनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153DSection 68

self- contradictory inasmuch as initially the CIT(A) went into the question of determination whether sale transaction resulted in long-term or short term capital gains, thereby accepting the transaction as such, but at the later stage holding, by taking a complete U turn, the transaction itself

Om Prakash Sharma, Sanganer Jaipur vs. Ward 4(3), Jaipur

ITA 43/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Him. 2

For Appellant: Sh. Ashish SharmaFor Respondent: Sh. Anoop Singh, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)

pointed of certain discrepancies and did not allow the deduction of cost of acquisition and expenses incurred from the computation of short term capital gain. I find from the submission of the appellant and supporting evidences that the appellant is entitled for deduction of cost of acquisition and expenses incurred ... Therefore, the addition made by the AO is directed to allow the deduction of cost of acquisition and expenses incurred from the short-term capital gain after due verification. Thus, this ground of partly allowed. 5. Assessee feeling dissatisfied from the above order of the Id. CIT(A) preferred

Shri Rampriya Developers Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Incometax, Circle-3(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1946/HYD/2017[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad14 Aug 2024AY 1999-2000

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1946/Hyd/2017 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 1999-2000) Shri Rampriya Developers Vs. Dy. C. I. T. (P) Ltd Circle 3(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aajcs6629P (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri A.V. Raghuram, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Shakeer Ahmed, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 09/07/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 14/08/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Raghuram, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Shri Shakeer Ahmed, DR
Section 143(3)Section 14A

return of income for the A.Y 1999-2000 on 31.12.1999 declaring total income of Rs.3,84,09,010/- which includes long term and short term capital gains. The assessment has been completed u/s 143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961 on 30.03.2022 and determined the total income at Rs.9 ... inter alia making disallowances of short term capital loss claimed against the short term capital gains derived from sale of shares for Rs.,4,24,29,003 and disallowance of interest expenditure u/s 14A of the I.T. Act, 1961. 4. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the first

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, Mumbai vs. Add/Joint/Deputy/ACIT, National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi

In the result, ground no. 1 raised by the revenue is

ITA 569/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shuklaand

For Appellant: Shri Biswanath Das, Ld. DRFor Respondent: Shri Faroog Irani, Ld. AR
Section 250Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)(ii)Section 36(2)(viia)

disallowance under section 40(a) (ia). So far as the reason to reopen the assessment on the ground that the assessee had declared short term capital gains of Rs. 3.63 crores in respect of income earned out of investments had to be taxed/classified as business income is concerned ... that the treatment given was consistent with the earlier year practice and accepted by the revenue. Further it is not disputed that the short term capital gains have been assessed to the maximum marginal rate and even if considered as business income, the tax effect would be the same. Consequently

DCIT-2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, Mumbai

In the result, ground no. 1 raised by the revenue is

ITA 4056/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shuklaand

For Appellant: Shri Biswanath Das, Ld. DRFor Respondent: Shri Faroog Irani, Ld. AR
Section 250Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)(ii)Section 36(2)(viia)

disallowance under section 40(a) (ia). So far as the reason to reopen the assessment on the ground that the assessee had declared short term capital gains of Rs. 3.63 crores in respect of income earned out of investments had to be taxed/classified as business income is concerned ... that the treatment given was consistent with the earlier year practice and accepted by the revenue. Further it is not disputed that the short term capital gains have been assessed to the maximum marginal rate and even if considered as business income, the tax effect would be the same. Consequently

Suresh Kantilal Thakkar, Banaskantha vs. The PCIT, Ahmedabad-3, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed and the Assessing

ITA 1025/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Bhavik Nagori, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Kamlesh Makwana, CIT DR
Section 147Section 263Section 69A

attention to return of income filed by the assessee and submitted that during the impugned year under consideration, the assessee had only earned Short Term Capital Gains (STCG) of Rs. 18,582/- on sale of shares of stock called Anaar industries on which due taxes have been Suresh Kantilal Thakkar

Faiz Zakir Vali, Nagpur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(1), Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 65/NAG/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur06 Aug 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Smt. Veen AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya
Section 10Section 132(4)Section 139Section 139(4)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)

agricultural land to be non- agricultural land and thereby making addition to the tune of Rs.2,55,00,000/- under the head short term capital gain of Income Tax Act, 1961. Faiz Zakir Vali ITA no.65/Nag./2021 (3). Whether the Ld.CIT(A) is justified in law as well as fact ... justified in law and facts in holding that the land in question was not the agricultural land and thus treating sale as short term capital gain. (5). The assessee pleas to add/amend/alter/change any ground of appeal during the course of appellate proceeding.” 3. The learned A.R., upon her argument

Smt. Bridget Anthony(Legal Heir of Late Mr. Elevathingal Joseph Anthony), Bangalore vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-4(2)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 509/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Sri Sandeep Chalapathy, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, D.R
Section 143(2)Section 250Section 69

Noratanmal and Smt. Manju Bai on 01.02.2015 for a Sale consideration of Rs. 69,44,000/- due to some 'defect in vaastu' and short term capital gains (STCG) of Rs. 36,278/- was shown on the transaction by him in his ROI. On being confronted with the issue the assessee

Samarjit Singh Chabra, Chennai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward 14(1), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1646/CHNY/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jul 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1623, 1624, 1625 & 1646/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2008-09 & W.T.A. Nos. 43 & 44/Chny/2018 Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2008-09 Shri Samarijit Singh Chabra, Vs. The Income Tax Officer/ No. K-10, Sangath Apartments, Wealth Tax Officer, Mgr Nagar, Velachery, Non Corporate Ward – 14(1), Chennai 600 042. Chennai. [Pan: Bfops1703Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 08.05.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Four Income Tax Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders All Dated 26.02.2018 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 14, Chennai For The Assessment Years 2007-08, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2008-09. 2. Since, Issues Raised In All The Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of The Both The Parties, We Proceed

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 142(1)

assessee] raised in the appeal of the assessee in challenging the action of the ld. CIT(A) in sustaining the short term capital gains relating to the sale of Devi Karumariamman Nagar flat amounting to ₹.18,02,830/-. 46. We note that the assessee sold ... Assessing Officer, accordingly, by taking into sale consideration at ₹.35,00,000/- less cost of acquisition at ₹.16,97,170/-, determined the short term capital gains at ₹.18,02,830/- [₹.35,00,000 – ₹.16,97,170]. 47. The ld. CIT(A) confirmed the views of the Assessing Officer

Samarjit Singh Chabra, Chennai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward 14(1), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1625/CHNY/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1623, 1624, 1625 & 1646/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2008-09 & W.T.A. Nos. 43 & 44/Chny/2018 Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2008-09 Shri Samarijit Singh Chabra, Vs. The Income Tax Officer/ No. K-10, Sangath Apartments, Wealth Tax Officer, Mgr Nagar, Velachery, Non Corporate Ward – 14(1), Chennai 600 042. Chennai. [Pan: Bfops1703Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 08.05.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Four Income Tax Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders All Dated 26.02.2018 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 14, Chennai For The Assessment Years 2007-08, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2008-09. 2. Since, Issues Raised In All The Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of The Both The Parties, We Proceed

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 142(1)

assessee] raised in the appeal of the assessee in challenging the action of the ld. CIT(A) in sustaining the short term capital gains relating to the sale of Devi Karumariamman Nagar flat amounting to ₹.18,02,830/-. 46. We note that the assessee sold ... Assessing Officer, accordingly, by taking into sale consideration at ₹.35,00,000/- less cost of acquisition at ₹.16,97,170/-, determined the short term capital gains at ₹.18,02,830/- [₹.35,00,000 – ₹.16,97,170]. 47. The ld. CIT(A) confirmed the views of the Assessing Officer

Samarjit Singh Chabra, Chennai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward 14(1), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1624/CHNY/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jul 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1623, 1624, 1625 & 1646/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2008-09 & W.T.A. Nos. 43 & 44/Chny/2018 Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2008-09 Shri Samarijit Singh Chabra, Vs. The Income Tax Officer/ No. K-10, Sangath Apartments, Wealth Tax Officer, Mgr Nagar, Velachery, Non Corporate Ward – 14(1), Chennai 600 042. Chennai. [Pan: Bfops1703Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 08.05.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Four Income Tax Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders All Dated 26.02.2018 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 14, Chennai For The Assessment Years 2007-08, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2008-09. 2. Since, Issues Raised In All The Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of The Both The Parties, We Proceed

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 142(1)

assessee] raised in the appeal of the assessee in challenging the action of the ld. CIT(A) in sustaining the short term capital gains relating to the sale of Devi Karumariamman Nagar flat amounting to ₹.18,02,830/-. 46. We note that the assessee sold ... Assessing Officer, accordingly, by taking into sale consideration at ₹.35,00,000/- less cost of acquisition at ₹.16,97,170/-, determined the short term capital gains at ₹.18,02,830/- [₹.35,00,000 – ₹.16,97,170]. 47. The ld. CIT(A) confirmed the views of the Assessing Officer

Samarjit Singh Chabra, Chennai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward 14(1), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1623/CHNY/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jul 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1623, 1624, 1625 & 1646/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2008-09 & W.T.A. Nos. 43 & 44/Chny/2018 Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2008-09 Shri Samarijit Singh Chabra, Vs. The Income Tax Officer/ No. K-10, Sangath Apartments, Wealth Tax Officer, Mgr Nagar, Velachery, Non Corporate Ward – 14(1), Chennai 600 042. Chennai. [Pan: Bfops1703Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 08.05.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Four Income Tax Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders All Dated 26.02.2018 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 14, Chennai For The Assessment Years 2007-08, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2008-09. 2. Since, Issues Raised In All The Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of The Both The Parties, We Proceed

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 142(1)

assessee] raised in the appeal of the assessee in challenging the action of the ld. CIT(A) in sustaining the short term capital gains relating to the sale of Devi Karumariamman Nagar flat amounting to ₹.18,02,830/-. 46. We note that the assessee sold ... Assessing Officer, accordingly, by taking into sale consideration at ₹.35,00,000/- less cost of acquisition at ₹.16,97,170/-, determined the short term capital gains at ₹.18,02,830/- [₹.35,00,000 – ₹.16,97,170]. 47. The ld. CIT(A) confirmed the views of the Assessing Officer