← 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

Vandana Daga, Chennai vs. Pr. CIT, Chennai

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

ITA 1056/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1056/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 Vandana Daga, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 19-C, Nungambakkam High Road, Non Corporate Ward 3(5), Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034. Chennai. [Pan:Aclpv1469P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri M. Karunakaran, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 24.07.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26.07.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 27.03.2024 Passed By The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Chennai 4, Chennai Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. Ground No. 13 Raised In The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Not Pressed & Accordingly Dismissed As Not Pressed. 3. Ground Nos. 1 To 12 Raised By The Assessee Concerning Only Issue Questioning The Validity Of Jurisdiction Assumed By The Ld. Pcit Under Section 263 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri M. Karunakaran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

Officer made no addition on the issue of reopening relating to claims of excess cost of land, less long term capital gains and short term capital gains. The ld. AR drew our attention to the show-cause notice issued by the ld. PCIT and submits that the ld. PCIT issued ... discussions relating to the claims of excess cost of acquisition in respect of claim of long term capital gains and short term capital gains. He argued that the assumption of jurisdiction 3 I.T.A. No.1056/Chny/24 by the ld. PCIT is not maintainable as the Assessing Officer conducted detailed enquiry in respect

Farhana Mushtaq Begum, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 30(1)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 2720/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Smt Renu Jauhrifarhana Mushtaq Vs. Ito, Ward – 30(1)(3) C-13, 5Th Floor, Begum Pratyakshar Bhavan, Plot No. 373, Poonam Bandra (E), Mumbai. Nagar, Mahakali Caves Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai – 400 093. Pan/Gir No. Aubpb4014C (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Appellant By Mr. Mohammed Shahab Khan, Adv Respondent By Ms.Jancy Elizabeth Rani. Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 25.07.2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 26.07.2024 Order Per Renu Jauhri, Am: “ The Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-55, Mumbai (In Short “Cit(A)”) Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”). The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: The Hon'Ble Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 55, Mumbai Seriously Erred In Law & On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, In Confirming The Impugned

Section 143(3)Section 50CSection 50C(1)Section 50C(2)Section 50C(3)

dated 30/03/2016, Assessing Alleged Income at Rs. 28,08,777/-, being Alleged Addition of Rs. 18,33,820/- on account of Short Term Capital Gains and treated as Alleged Income U/s 50C(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without appreciating that the Valuation of the Capital Asset ... assessee had sold the residential flat located at Borivalli, Mumbai for a consideration of Rs. 41,00,000/- vide sale deed dated 0403.2013. Short term capital gain of Rs. 3,00,000/- was offered for taxation after reducing the cost of acquisition of Rs. 38,00,000/-. As the stamp

DCIT, Central Circle-3, Vadodara vs. M/S. Tash Investment Pvt. Ltd, Vadodara

The appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 821/AHD/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarआयकर अपील सं / Ita No. 821/Ahd/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2015-16 बनाम बनाम बनाम बनाम Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Tash Investment Pvt. Ltd., Income-Tax, 9Th Floor, Abs Tower, Vs. Central Circle-3, Old Padra Road, Vadodara Vadodara, Gujarat Pan: Aaact 6737 A अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Milin Mehta, Ar ""थ" की ओर से / Revenue By: Shri Pratik Sharma, Sr Dr सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 25/04/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 15/07/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Annapurna Guptapresent Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-12, Ahmedabad [Hereinafter Referred To As "Cit(A)" For Short] Dated 18.01.2018 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act" For Short], For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16. 2. Grounds Raised Are As Under:- “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 1,23,80,013/- (Rs.31,24,113/- Found From Locker No. 1483 Of Bank Of Baroda + Rs. 92,55,900/- Found From Locker No.430 Of Royal Bank Of Scotland) Made On Account Of Unexplained Jewellery Without Considering The Fact That The Assessee Could Not Explain The Source Of Investment & Also Could Not Submit The Documentary Evidences Regarding The Source Of Jewellery Like Purchase Bills, Vouchers Etc. Dcit Vs. Tash Investment Pvt Ltd Ay : 2015-16 2

For Appellant: Shri Milin Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Shri Pratik Sharma, Sr DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 250

characterizing the income earned by the assesse from dealing in shares as business income as opposed to long term and short term capital gains returned by the assessee on the same. 4. The grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue challenging the order of the ld. CIT(A) accordingly ... taxable under the head ‘income from business and profession’, as opposed to the assessee treating it as income earned from long term and short term capital gains. 13. The ld. Counsel for the assessee fairly pointed out that identical issue had been adjudicated by the ITAT in the case