← 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

Krishnamurthy Thagarajan, Bangalore vs. ACIT RG 6(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1651/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri Amarjit Singhआअसं.1651/मुं/2013 (िन.व. 2008-09) Krishnamurthy Thiagarajan, No.41, 36Th Main Dollar Scheme, Btm Layout, 1St Stage, Bangalore – 560 068. Pan: Aadpk-5126-C ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. The Acit, Circle 6(3),Mumbai, Room No.522 (5Th Floor), Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020. ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Miteshkumar Gupta, Ca With Shri V.Shivkumar, Ca Revenue By : Shri P.D.Chougule, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 20/02/2024 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 20/02/2024 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-12, Mumbai [In Short ‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 08/11/2012, For The Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. In Appeal Assessee Has Assailed Additions/Disallowances On Account Of: (I) Management Fee Paid To M/S. Bnp Paribas Investment Services India Pvt. Ltd. – Rs.1,71,028/-

For Appellant: Shri Miteshkumar Gupta, CA with Shri V.Shivkumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri P.D.Chougule, SR.DR
Section 14ASection 48

Miteshkumar Gupta appearing on behalf of the assessee submitted that during the period relevant to Assessment Year under appeal, the assessee has earned short term capital gain of Rs.10,04,322/- on sale of Securities. The assessee paid Rs.1,71,028/- to M/s. BNP Paribas Investment Services India ... short ‘BNP Paribas’) as management fees for sale of securities. The management fee paid to BNP Paribas is inextricably linked to earning of short term capital gain. The payment of management fee is not disputed by the Revenue. The Assessing Officer disallowed payment of the said fee only

Narendra Mahendra Kothari, Chennai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward 5(2), Chennai

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

ITA 1006/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1006/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 V. Shri Narendra Mahendra- The Income Tax Officer, Kothari, Non-Corporate Ward-5(2), No.76, Osian Heights, Chennai. Basin Bridge Road, Mint, Chennai-600 079. [Pan: Amopk 2535 Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By Shri D. Anand, Advocate : ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By Shri Arv Sreenivasan, Addl.Cit : सुनवाईक"तारीख/Date Of Hearing 05.02.2024 घोषणाक"तारीख /Date Of : 14.02.2024 Pronouncement

Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)Section 54Section 68Section 80C

erred in law in assessing the Long-Term Capital Gain arising from sale of property and reinvestment in new residential property as short term capital gains and disallowance of investment u/s.54 of The Act. 3. The learned CIT(A) erred in law in assessing the difference in commission without considering ... short “the Act“) on 24.10.2016 and determined total income of Rs.58,27,360/- by making various additions, including additions towards Short Term Capital Gains derived from transfer of property, additions towards difference in commission paid on sales and debited to P & L A/c, additions on account of difference in closing

Devarshi Commercials LLP, Mumbai vs. DCIT -17(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1894/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri Amarjit Singhआअसं.1894/मुं/2023 (िन.व. 2018-19) Devarshi Commercial Llp, 84-A, Mittal Court, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 Pan: Aahfd-1854-E ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax-17(1), Mumbai, Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra (East) Mumbai – 400 051 ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Madhur Agrawal, Advocate With Shri Nimesh Vora, Sr.A.R Revenue By : Ms. Agnes P. Thomas सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 30/11/2023 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 07/02/2024 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [In Short ‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 31/03/2023, For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Assessee In Appeal Has Assailed The Order Of Cit(A) On Solitary Ground I.E. Disallowance Of Interest Claimed U/S. 57(Iii) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short ‘The Act’]. The Assessee Vide Application Dated 16/10/2023 Raised Additional Grounds Of Appeal, The Same Read As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawal, Advocate with Shri Nimesh Vora, Sr.A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Agnes P. Thomas
Section 111ASection 14ASection 36Section 57

assessee submitted that the case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny under E-Assessment Scheme on the following issues: 3 (i) Short Term Capital Gains u/s. 111A (ii)Expenses incurred for earning exempt income. The Assessing Officer over stepped his jurisdiction and made addition of Rs.2 ... assessee. The case of the assessee was selected by CASS for Limited Scrutiny on the following issues: (i) Short Term Capital Gains u/s. 111A of the Act (ii) Expenses incurred for earning exempt income. The contention of the assessee is that while examining the second issue the Assessing Officer