← 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

Kandasamy Mani, Salem vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Salem

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

ITA 365/CHNY/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.365/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 Kandasamy Mani, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 94/50, Rasi Tex, Mariamman Koil Ward 1(1), Street, Ponnammapet, Salem. Salem 636 001. [Pan: Alvpm4675P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate, Erode ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 30.05.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 05.06.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Against The Order Dated 29.12.2023 Passed By The Addl/Jcit(A), Thane For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. Ground Nos. 1, 3 & 4 Are General In Nature & Requires No Adjudication. 3. Ground No. 2 Is Not Pressed. 4. Ground Nos. 5 To 8 Raised By The Assessee In Challenging The Action Of First Appellate Authority In Confirming The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer On Account Of Land Development Expenses.

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate, ErodeFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT

Officer on account of land development expenses. 2 I.T.A. No.365/Chny/24 5. The ld. AR Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate submits that the assessee shown short term capital gains of ₹.30,86,167/- after deducting ₹.10,44,755/- as land development expenditure. The Assessing Officer asked the assessee to furnish the details

Mukhundhan Gopalan, Trichy vs. ACIT Circle 1(1), Trichy

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

ITA 504/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 504/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Mukhundhan Gopalan, The Asst. Commissioner Of B-901, Trichy Rich 104, Vs. Income Tax, Salai Road, Woraiyur Bazaar, Circle 1(1), Trichy – 620 003. Trichy. Pan: Aagpm 1974P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri M. Murali, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05.06.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05.06.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Revision Order Passed By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Madurai – 1 In Order No. Itba/Rev/F/Rev5/2022-23/1050429409 (1) Dated 06.03.2023. The Assessment Was Framed By The Additional/ Joint/Deputy/Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax/Income-Tax Officer, National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi For The Assessment Year 2018-19 U/S.143(3) R.W.S.143(3A) & 143(3B) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’) Vide Order Dated 19.10.2020. 2. The Only Issue In This Appeal Of Assessee Is Against The Revision Order Passed By The Pcit U/S.263 Of The Act Revising The Assessment Completed By Ao U/S.143(3) Of The Act Dated 19.10.2020 Without Making Enquiry In Regard To Expenses Relatable To Exempt Income U/S.14A R.W.Rule 8D(2)(Ii) Of The Income Tax Rules, 1962 (Hereinafter The ‘Rules’). For This, Assessee Has Raised Many Grounds Which Are Argumentative & Exhaustive & Hence, Need Not Be Reproduced.

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. Murali, CIT
Section 111ASection 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

following, (i) High income reported in the return and no entry in Schedule Assets and Liabilities of return of income and (ii) Large short term capital gains declared u/s 111A. Subsequently, the PCIT issued show-cause notice dated 14.02.2023 requiring the assessee as to why the expenses relatable to exempt

Renault Nissan Automotive India Private Limited, Kancheepuram vs. DCIT, Corpoate Circle-5(3), Chennai

The appeal stand partly allowed

ITA 206/CHNY/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jun 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.206/Chny/2018 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2010-11) M/S.Renault Nissan Automotive India Dcit Private Limited Company Circle-V(3), बनाम Plot No.1, Sipcot Industrial Park, Chennai. / Vs. Oragadam, Mattur Post, Sriperumbudur-602 015. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Aadcr-7965-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri N.V.Balaji (Advocate)-Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri V.Nandakumar (Cit) -Ld.Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25-04-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03-06-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri N.V.Balaji (Advocate)-Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri V.Nandakumar (CIT) -Ld.DR
Section 143(3)Section 250

employee. 4.3 Itis humbly submitted that the disallowance be deleted and claim be permitted. 5. Additions on account of short term capital gains INR 1,11,31,343 5.1 The learned CIT(A) has erred in law by not considering FIFO method adopted by the assessee to determine the gains ... Disallowance of expenditure incurred during set-up of business; (ii) Depreciation Disallowance; (iii) Disallowance u/s 43B; (iv) Addition on account of Short-Term Capital Gains. 2. The Ld. AR advanced arguments and placed on record issue-wise chart. Reliance has been placed on various judicial decisions

Vidyavathi Manthravadi, United Kingdom vs. Commissioner of Income Tax(It and Tp), Hyderabad

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

ITA 295/VIZ/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.292/Viz/2023 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year :2013-14) Sivakama Sundar Manthravadi, Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax United Kingdom. (It & Tp), Pan: Avspm 1372 N Hyderabad. (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.295/Viz/2023 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year : 2013-14) Vidyavathi Manthravadi, Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax United Kingdom. (It & Tp), Pan: Avspm 1370 Q Hyderabad. (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधर्थीकीओरसे/ Assessees By : Ms. P. Chandini, Ar प्रत्यधर्थीकीओरसे/ Revenue By : Dr. Satyasai Rath, Cit-Dr सुिवधईकीतधरीख/ Date Of Hearing : 27/03/2024 घोर्णधकीतधरीख/Date Of : 28/05/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R Per S. Balakrishnan:

For Respondent: Dr. Satyasai Rath, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 54Section 54E

thereby concluded that the assessee has violated the provisions of section 54(1) of the Act. The Ld. CIT considered the sale as short term capital gains and consequently concluded that deduction claimed U/s. 54EC of the Act is not allowable. The Ld. CIT did not consider the explanation provided ... verify the claim of deduction of the assessee and reduce the cost of acquisition accordingly while computing the income from short term capital gains for the AY 2013-14. Further, the Ld. CIT also directed the Ld.AO to not allow deduction U/s. 54EC of the Act. The Ld. CIT directed

Sivakama Sundar Manthravadi, United Kingdom vs. Commissioner of Income Tax(It and Tp), Hyderabad

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

ITA 292/VIZ/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.292/Viz/2023 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year :2013-14) Sivakama Sundar Manthravadi, Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax United Kingdom. (It & Tp), Pan: Avspm 1372 N Hyderabad. (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.295/Viz/2023 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year : 2013-14) Vidyavathi Manthravadi, Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax United Kingdom. (It & Tp), Pan: Avspm 1370 Q Hyderabad. (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधर्थीकीओरसे/ Assessees By : Ms. P. Chandini, Ar प्रत्यधर्थीकीओरसे/ Revenue By : Dr. Satyasai Rath, Cit-Dr सुिवधईकीतधरीख/ Date Of Hearing : 27/03/2024 घोर्णधकीतधरीख/Date Of : 28/05/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R Per S. Balakrishnan:

For Respondent: Dr. Satyasai Rath, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 54Section 54E

thereby concluded that the assessee has violated the provisions of section 54(1) of the Act. The Ld. CIT considered the sale as short term capital gains and consequently concluded that deduction claimed U/s. 54EC of the Act is not allowable. The Ld. CIT did not consider the explanation provided ... verify the claim of deduction of the assessee and reduce the cost of acquisition accordingly while computing the income from short term capital gains for the AY 2013-14. Further, the Ld. CIT also directed the Ld.AO to not allow deduction U/s. 54EC of the Act. The Ld. CIT directed

Ramsing Himmatsing Rajput, Nashik vs. ITO, Ward 2(1), Nashik

ITA 601/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 May 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.601/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Ramsing Himmatsing Vs. Ito, Ward-2(1), Nashik. Rajput, Plot No.17, Usha Bunglow, Near Seven Heven Hotel, Behind Lotus House, Chetna Nagar, Nashik- 422009. Pan : Adrpr2780A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sanket Joshi Revenue By : Shri Manoj Tripathi Date Of Hearing : 02.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.05.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 19.02.2024 Passed By Ld Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1] The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition U/S 50C Of Rs. 14,25,000 By Taxing The Difference Between Govt. Valuation Of Rs.22,25,000 & Actual Sale Consideration Of Rs.8,00,000 Without Appreciating That The Impugned Land Located Near River Bank Was Vulnerable To Floods, It Was Situated Near Cremation

For Appellant: Shri Sanket JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Tripathi
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 50C

gain of Rs.14,25,000/-, being difference of stamp duty value Rs.22,25,000/- & the actual sale consideration of Rs.8,00,000/-as “Short Term Capital Gains”. 4. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, who vide impugned order Dated 19-02-2024 partly allowed ... stamp duty purposes per section 50C (2) and that the AO has erred in not considering cost of land sold while calculating short term capital gain. 6.1 The AO in the assessment order noted that the assessee had sold an immovable property at Rs. 800000/- whose guideline value

Income-Tax Officer, Ahmedabad vs. Jhaveri Sandeep Bipinchandra (HUF), Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 805/AHD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra R. Kambleassessment Year : 2016-17 Jhaveri Sandeep Income Tax Officer, Vs. Bipinchandra (Huf), Ward-5(3)(1), 21, Crest Nutan Laxmi Soc., Ahmedabad 9Th Road, Jvpd Scheme, Juhu, Mumbai, Maharashtra 400049 Pan : Aachj 0855 Q अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" "" "" यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" Assessee By : Shri Deepak Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 15.02.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 10.05.2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Annapurna Guptapresent Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue Against Order Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Pune-12 [Hereinafter Referred To As "Cit(A)" For Short] Dated 24.08.2023 Passed Under Section 250(6) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act" For Short], For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17. 2. Ground Of Appeal No.1 Raised By The Department Reads As Under:- “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Treating The Income Of Rs. 54,49,539/- As Short Term Capital Gain Instead Of Business Income.” 3. The Issue Raised In The Above Ground Relates To The Short Term Capital Gain Returned By The Assessee, On The Transactions Of Dealing In Shares, As Ito Vs Jhaveri Sandeep Bipinchandra Huf Ay : 2016-17 2

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr DR
Section 250(6)

circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in treating the income of Rs. 54,49,539/- as Short Term Capital Gain instead of business income.” 3. The issue raised in the above ground relates to the Short Term Capital Gain returned by the assessee ... Sandeep Bipinchandra HUF AY : 2016-17 2 business income of the assessee. The assessee is involved in share trading activity and had returned Short Term Capital Gain on the same amounting to Rs.65,49,765/-. The Assessing Officer, however, found that, in the preceding year