“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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rama Sivaraman, Mumbai vs. AO Ward 3(2), Thane

ITA 6947/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Mr. Rajeev N. LFor Respondent: Shri Annavaram Kosuri

Section 147

aforesaid submissions on account of lack of supporting evidence and therefore, proceeded to assessee the entire sale consideration of INR.63,50,000/- as Short Term Capital Gain in the hands of the Assessee vide Assessment Order, dated 02/09/2021, passed under Section 147 of the Act 5. Being aggrieved the Assessee ... that totality of the prevailing facts and circumstances, we deem it appropriate and in the interest of justice set aside the addition of short term capital gains of INR.63,50,000/- made in the hands of the Assessee with the directions to the Assessing Officer to adjudicate the issue afresh

Rama Sivaraman, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 3(2), Mumbai

ITA 6946/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Mr. Rajeev N. LFor Respondent: Shri Annavaram Kosuri

Section 147

Kanhaiya Lal Panchal, Ratlam vs. Bpl-W-(91)(95), Ratlam

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 702/IND/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Indore16 Jan 2026AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year:2024-25 Kanhaiya Lal Panchal, Bpl-W-(91)(95) 1, Jadwasa Kala, बनाम/ Ratlam Vs. (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aqrpp0055D Assessee By Shri Kaide Kangsawala, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 16.01.2026

Section 111ASection 112Section 112ASection 115BSection 143(1)Section 154Section 3(6)Section 81Section 87A

comprising of income Page 1 of 12 Kanhaiya Lal Panchal ITA No. 702/Ind/2025 – AY 2024-25 from salary, short-term capital gain, long-term capital gain and income from other sources alongwith agricultural income of Rs. 2,74,118/-. The assessee opted under new tax regime u/s 115BAC, computed ... assessee in Written-Synopsis: Income Amount Tax Rate Tax Amount Normal income 3,03,996 Slab rates 200 Special income by way of Short Term Capital Gain u/s 81 15% 12 111A Special income by way of long-term capital gain u/s 112 1,11,393 20% 22,279 Special

Kulavendra Kaur, Jaspur vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-2(2)(1) Kashipur, Kashipur

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 81/DDN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun12 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Manish Agarwalita No. 81/Ddn/2025 : Asstt. Year: 2016-17 Kulavendra Kaur Vs Income Tax Officer, M/S Gurukirpa Boutique, Village- Ward-2(2)(1), Hamirowal, Jaspur, Kashipur, Kashipur, Uttarakhand-244712 Uttarakhand-244713 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Dugpk4830R Assessee By : Sh. Harhit Goel, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Amar Pal Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 12.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 12.01.2026 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2016-17, Arises Against The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/10734919886(1) Dated 20.02.2025, In Proceedings U/S 147 R.W.S. 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Heard Both The Parties At Length. Case File Perused.

For Appellant: Sh. Harhit Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Amar Pal Singh, Sr. DR

Section 147

dispute between the parties that the assessee had sold her immovable property/house for sale consideration of Rs.32,72,000/- and declared short term capital gains arising therefrom as assessable under the provisions of the Act. Coming to the foregoing sole substantive issue between the parties, the Revenue vehemently argues that ... particularly submits that the assessee had purchased only a vacant plot followed by her construction cost incurred thereupon which finally culminated in the short term capital gains declared at her behest. 6. We find no reason to accept either party’s arguments in entirety. This is for the precise reason

Satara Engineering Projects and Equipments Private Limited, Satara vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle, Satara

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

ITA 2450/PUN/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Jan 2026AY 2024-25

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2450/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2024-25

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar &For Respondent: Shri Ganesh B. Budruk

Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250

shall be computed at the rate of thirty per cent: Provided also that the income-tax payable in respect of income being short term capital gains derived from transfer of a capital asset on which no depreciation is allowable under the Act shall be computed at the rate of twenty

Pari Anil Gandhi, Rajkot vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2(1)(1), Rajkot

In the result, both the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 897/RJT/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot05 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 896 & 897/Rjt/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Hybrid Hearing) Pari Anil Gandhi Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1)(1), C-702 Sadguru Vatika, Airport Road, 2- Aayakar Bhavan Race Course Ring Maruti Nagar, Rajkot - 360001 Road, Rajkot - 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Bahpg7804E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri D. M. Rindani, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 09 / 10 /2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 05 / 01 /2026 आदेश/Order Per Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm; Captioned Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2013-14, Is Directed Against Order Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 By National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi/Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Dated 22/11/2024, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 147 Read With Section 144B Of The I.T. Act, On Dated 28/03/2022. 2. Since, The Issues Involved All These Appeals Are Common & Identical; Therefore, These Appeals Have Been Heard Together & A Consolidated Order Are Being Passed For The Sake Of Convenience, We Shall Take The Lead Case In Ita No.896/Rjt/2024 For Assessment Year 2013-14. Ita No. 896&897/Rjt/2024 Pari Anil Gandhi Rajkot

For Appellant: Shri D. M. Rindani, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav Ld. SR. DR

Section 115BSection 144BSection 147Section 154Section 234Section 234ASection 234BSection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

ITA No. 896&897/Rjt/2024 Pari Anil Gandhi Rajkot IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN

Pari Anil Gandhi, Rajkot vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2(1)(1) Rajkot, Rajkot

In the result, both the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 896/RJT/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot05 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri D. M. Rindani, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav Ld. SR. DR

Section 115BSection 144BSection 147Section 154Section 234Section 234ASection 234BSection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

ITA No. 896&897/Rjt/2024 Pari Anil Gandhi Rajkot IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN

Adhi Kumara Guru, Chennai vs. DCIT, Ncc-22(1), Chennai

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

ITA 120/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Amitabh Shuklaमाननीय "ी मनु कुमार िग"र, "ाियक सद" एवं माननीय "ी अिमताभ शु"ा, लेखा सद" के सम"

For Appellant: Mr. P.M. Kathir, Advocate for Mr.G.Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R Anitha, Addl.CIT

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 54F

improvement of after disallowing the cost of improvement of Rs.15,00,000/- claimed by the claimed by the assessee while computing while computing ‘Short Term Capital Gains’. 4. Thereafter, the assessment was reopened for the first time 4. Thereafter, the assessment was reopened for the first time 4. Thereafter ... also observed from the records that the assessee offered short It is also observed from the records that the assessee offered short term capital gains on account of selling the property purchased in term capital gains on account of selling the property purchased in term capital gains on account

Jagmeet Singh Sabharwal, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Income Tax

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 954/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Surendra Singh Sabharwal, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik (Sr. DR)

Section 143(3)Section 2(47)Section 50C

assessee has mainly challenged the decision of the Assessing Officer treating the capital gains arising on sale of an immovable property as Short Term Capital Gains instead of Long Term Capital Gains as claimed by the assessee. The AO noted that the date of purchase of property as reflected ... registered sale deed dated 30.12.2011. On being pointed out to show cause as to why the transaction should not be considered as short term capital gains, it was explained by the assessee that he purchased a property in F.Y. 2006-07 and sold

Ishares Core Msci Total International Stock Etf (As A Successor to Ishare Core Taotal International Stock Mauritius Company ), Mumbai vs. Dy CIT (Int. Tax)-2(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 6774/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jan 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhailishares Core Msci Emerging Markets Etf (As A Successor To Ishares Core Emerging Markets Mauritius Company) C/O Ernst & Young Llp, 17Th Floor, The Ruby, 29, Senapati Bapat Marg, ............... Appellant Dadar (West), Mumbai - 400028 Pan : Aafci3337N V/S Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax (International Tax) - 2(2)(2) Room No.606, 6Th Floor, Kautilya Bhavan, ……………… Respondent C-41 To C-43, G-Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai – 400051 Ishares Msci All Country Asia Ex Japan Etf C/O Ernst & Young Llp, 17Th Floor, The Ruby, 29, Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar (West), Mumbai - 400028 Pan : Aabti7439L ............... Appellant

For Appellant: Shri Pranav GandhiFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 70Section 70(2)

erred in rejecting the hierarchy of set-off of short-term capital losses adopted by the Appellant and thereby, taxing the gross short-term capital gains (STCG) in respect of transactions on the sale of shares not chargeable to STT; 3. failed to appreciate that income under the head 'Capital ... High Court against one of the orders of the Jurisdictional Tribunal; 6. Without prejudice to the above, erred in not setting- off the short-term capital gains arising from sale of share not subjected to STT against brought forward unabsorbed short-term capital loss subjected to STT, contrary

Ishares Core Msci Emerging Markets Etf (As A Successor to Ishares Core Emerging Markets Mauritius Company, Mumbai vs. DCIT (Tp) 2(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 6051/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jan 2026AY 2023-24

For Appellant: Shri Pranav GandhiFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 70Section 70(2)

Ishares Msci All Country Asia Ex Japan Etf, Mumbai vs. DCIT (Int. Tax)-2(2)(2), Mumbai

ITA 6050/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jan 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Pranav GandhiFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 70Section 70(2)

Muthiah Lakshmanan, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-3(5), Chennai

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

ITA 3016/CHNY/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Jan 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Ms. T.V Muthu Abirami, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. ARV Sreenivasan, C.I.T

Section 111ASection 144Section 69

making an addition of Rs.35,11,90,432/- as unexplained investment u/s.69 of the Act and Rs.3,22,14,480/- as Short Term Capital Gain and arrived a total income of Rs.38,34,04,910/-. 3. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before ... NFAC ignored the documents available on record and detailed written submissions filed by the assessee and the issue on short term capital gains was decided based on the statement of facts alone. Further, the ld.AR of the assessee submitted additional documentary evidence before the Tribunal. In view of the above

Vasant Ganesh Marathe, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 19(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 5796/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryvasant Ganesh Marathe Ito Ward 19(2)(2) Room No. 70, Moiddin Chawl, Kautilya Bhavan Kalina Village, Santacruz East Vs. Bandra East Mumbai-400 057. Mumbai-400 051. Pan : Ajnpm5644C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Suresh Otwani, Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri Praveen K. Srivastav, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing : 20/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/12/2025 O R D E R Per Narender Kumar Choudhry (Jm) :-

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Otwani, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Praveen K. Srivastav

Section 144

assessment order dated 23.1.2022 under section 144 and 144B of the Act, whereby the addition of Rs. 18,50,745/- on account of short term capital gains has been made by the Assessing Officer, in limine, but not on merits of the case. Thus, this Court by respectfully following

Sindhumati Ramavtar Pathak, Borivali Mumbai vs. Asst Commissioner of Income Tax 32 3 Mumbai Presently Dy C I T Circle 42 3 1 Mumbai, Mumbai

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 4914/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry (Jm) & Shri Prabhash Shankar (Am) Sindhumati Ramavtar Pathak Acit-32(3) 4, Shree Bhalchandra Kripa Presently Cit, Circle Building, Daulat Nagar Road Vs. 42(3)(1) No. 3, Borivali East Kautilya Bhavan Bkc, Mumbai-400 066. Mumbai-51. Pan : Agbpp5972D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Singh, Ld. ADVFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, Ld. DR

Section 10(38)Section 250Section 68Section 69C

Appellant before Your Honours is a widow and senior citizen. The Appellant is a regular investor in shares and regularly offers Short Term Capital Gains and Long Term Capital Gains as well as Speculation Profit / Loss in her return of income. Page 4 - 7 of the paper book

Arun Kumar Sarup, Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4709/MUM/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain& Shri Prabhash Shankararun Kumar Sarup Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of 2Nd Floor, Amartara Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Circle Saki Vihar Road, Powai, 1(1)(1), Mumbai Mumbai – 400072. 553, 5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavn, Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai - 400020 Pan/Gir No. Aahps2384Q (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

categorized into Short term or Long term. 12. Thus, for determining the question – whether the assessee has earned long term capital gains or short term capital gains, it is necessary to ascertain the holding period of shares, i.e., time period commencing from the date of allotment of shares and ending

Yogendra Sharma, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Etah

In the result, the appeal preferred by assessee is allowed

ITA 408/AGR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Agra19 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2012-13 Yogendra Sharma, I-4695, 2Nd Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Floor, Gali No. 4-B, Balbir Nagar Ward 3(2), Etah. Extension, Shahdara, Delhi. Pan :Cgkps6492J (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 50C

gross business receipts. Accordingly, he added the difference of Rs.3,07,400/- to the total income of the assessee. Further, he determined the short term capital gains of Rs.2,32,800/- and observed that the capital gain declared by the assessee in his ITR is not substantiated by any evidence ... there is contradiction to the stamp duty value of the sold property. Accordingly, he treated the same as short term capital gains by determining the same as under : Full Value of consideration (as per section 50C) Rs.8,40,000/- Cost of acquisition Rs.1,07,200/- Cost of improvement Rs.5

Venkata Prasad Pulipati, Amaravathi vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Guntur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 612/VIZ/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam19 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Balakrishnan S.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.612/Viz/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Venkata Prasad Pulipati, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Amaravathi. Ward-2(1), Pan: Asapp8796L Guntur. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri I. Kama Sastry, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of 03/12/2025 Hearing: घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 19/12/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order

For Appellant: Shri I. Kama Sastry, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)(b)Section 151Section 30Section 69

section 148 of the Act, dated 27/07/2022. 3. Thereafter, the AO vide his order under section 30/05/2023 after making certain additions, viz., (i) short term capital gains (STCG) on sale of property: Rs.11,55,505/-; (ii) disallowance of the assessee’s claim of long term capital loss: Rs.47

Vulli Radhakrishna, Tuni vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Tuni

ITA 359/VIZ/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam19 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Balakrishnan S.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.359/Viz/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16) Vulli Radhakrishna, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Tuni. Ward-1, Pan: Aegpv1751H Tuni. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Gvn Hari, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of 04/12/2025 Hearing: घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 19/12/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, Jm: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 17/03/2025, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (For Short “A.O.”) Under Section 147 R.W.S 144 R.W.S 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short “The Act”) Dated 26/03/2022 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16. 2 Vulli Radhakrishna Vs. Ito

For Appellant: Shri GVN Hari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR

Section 147Section 148Section 151ASection 69A

sustaining the addition of Rs.1,68,552 made by the assessing officer by considering some alleged sale proceeds of equity shares as short- term capital gains of the appellant. 8. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified in sustaining the addition of Rs.5,62,021 made ... unexplained payment of credit cards bills: Rs.11,79,160/-; (iii) unexplained investment towards purchase of equity shares: Rs.3,76,565/-; and (iv) short term capital gains (STCG) on sale of equity shares: Rs.1,68,552/-. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A) but without

JCIT(OSD), Jhandewalan vs. Narendra Aggarwal, Faridabad

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

ITA 1017/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwaljcit (Osd), Jhandewalan, Vs. Narendra Aggarwal, Delhi H.No. 467, Sector-21-A, Fardidabad, Haryana (Pan: Aagpa1441D) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Dr.Rakesh Gupta, Adv., Sh. Somil Agarwal, Adv., Saksham Agarwal, Ca & Deepesh Garg, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Amisha S. Gupt, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.11.2025 Date Of Order : 19.12.2025 O R D E R Per Sudhir Kumar, Jm :

For Appellant: Dr.Rakesh Gupta, Adv., Sh. Somil AgarwalFor Respondent: Ms. Amisha S. Gupt, CIT DR

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 263Section 68

wherein the returned income was accepted at Rs. 6,20,97,150/-. Accordingly, the claim of short term capital gains on sale of shares of M/s KD Trend Wear Limited and M/s Parnav Sports Academy Limited was not disturbed. Thereafter, the PCIT initiated the proceedings under section ... assessment after considering the observations of PCIT in the order passed u/s. 263 of the Act on 31.3.2021 to reexamine the issue of short term capital gains involving penny stock. Subsequently, on appeal filed by the appellant before the ITAT against the order passed by the PCIT under section