← 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

Amarjit Kaur Surinder Singh Kochhar, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-12(1)(1), Aayakar Bhawan, Mumbai

ITA 2513/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleamarjit Kaur Surinder Vs. Ito Ward-12(1)(1), Singh Kochhar, Aayakar Bhawan, 4, Plot No.667, 4Th Floor M.K.Road, Satguru Sundari, Mumbai-400020. Dr. Ambedkar Road, Khar (W), Mumbai-400052. Pan/Gir No. : Agspk6461F Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: ShriManiJain&ShriPrateekJain.ARFor Respondent: Shri.G.J.Ninawe. Sr.DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 148Section 151Section 68Section 69C

financial statements, the Assessing Officer found that the assessee has disclosed the income from salary, income from house property, business income, short term capital gains and income from other sources. Further the assessee has disclosed and claimed the exemption U/sec10(38) of the Act being long term capital gains

Amit Kumar Bhardwaj, Meerut vs. ITO, Ward-58(2), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3494/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Jan 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri M. Balaganeshamit Kumar Bhardwaj, Vs. Ito, 282, Boundary Road, Ward-58(2), Civic Line Meerut, Uttar Delhi Pradesh Pan: Ajopb9557C Assessee By : Shri Vinod Kumar Goel, Adv Revenue By: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 17/01/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 17/01/2024

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 50C

with the undivided share of land on proportionate basis. Ground floor and second floor remained with the assessee and his wife. Accordingly, the short term capital gains arising on transfer of first floor and 3rd floor would have to be divided equally between assessee and his wife. Hence, the assessee

Nageswara Rao Viswanadha, Visakhapatnam vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 213/VIZ/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam10 Jan 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Sri Madhukar Aves, Sr. AR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 50CSection 50C(2)Section 50C(3)

notices filed submissions through ITBA portal. The Ld. AO after verifying the submissions found that the assessee has offered Rs. 50,000/- towards Short Term Capital Gains (STCG). The Ld. AO also further observed that the assessee has sold two properties and received his share of sale consideration

Vinay Khetan, Noida vs. DCIT Circle 5(2)(1), Noida

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3427/DEL/2023[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jan 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Amit Rai, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Kirti Sankratyayan, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 254Section 271(1)(c)Section 50C

aggregate purchase of Rs.6,15,000/-. These plots were in turn sold at an aggregate consideration of Rs.9 lakh and Short Term Capital Gain arising thereon was offered for taxation. However with reference to Section 50C of the Act, the AO revised the sale consideration at the circle rate ... sale I.T.A. No.3427/Del/2023 3 consideration of Rs.9 lakh was accordingly revised and adopted at Rs.31,18,460/- and the Short Term Capital Gain was accordingly revised and enhanced. The AO also invoked the provisions of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act and alleged furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income

Sarita Alice Sequeira, Goa vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 11(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, adjournment request of the assessee is rejected and appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2913/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Dec 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm Income Tax Officer, Sarita Alice Sequeira Ward-11(2)(1) C/O Manish D. Ladage & Co. Room No.673/674, Chartered Accountants, Aaykar Bhavan, 1003/04, Centrum It Park, Vs. Next To Satkar Grande Hotel, Maharshi Karve Road, Wagle Estate, Thane, New Marine Lines, Mumbai-400 604 Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aylps9213Q Assessee By : Shri Ashwin Jain, Ar Revenue By : Shri Prashant Mahajan, Dr Date Of Hearing: 14.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.12.2023

For Appellant: Shri Ashwin Jain, ARFor Respondent: Shri Prashant Mahajan, DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

erred in confirming the addition of Rs.3,12,50,000/- made by the Ld. AO as alleged undisclosed short term capital gains. Your appellant, therefore, prays the aforesaid addition of Rs.3,12,50,000/- be deleted.” 03. Brief facts of the case shows that assessee is an individual, who filed ... found that assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act was passed in the case of the husband of the assessee treating the short term capital gain which was offered by him as business income. In the return of income of the assessee the above short term capital gain

DCIT-41(4)(1), Mumbai vs. Abdulsattar Suleman Ghaswala, Mumbai

In the result appeal of learned Assessing officer for A

ITA 1658/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Dec 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Abdulsattar Suleman Dcit-41(4)(1) Ghaswala Room No. 425, 4Th Floor, Kautilya 142/48 Ghaswala Estate Bhavan, Bkc, Bandra(East) Vs. S V Road Jogeshwari(W) Mumbai-400051 Mumbai-400102 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aalpg9088R Co No. 83/Mum/2023 (Arising In Ita No. 1658/Mum/2023 For A.Y. 2013-14) Abdulsattar Suleman Ghaswala Dcit-41(4)(1) Room No. 425, 4Th Floor, Kautilya 142/48 Ghaswala Estate S V Road Jogeshwari(W) Bhavan, Bkc, Bandra(East) Vs. Mumbai-400051 Mumbai-400102 (Cross Objector/ Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aalpg9088R

For Appellant: Shri. K. ShivramFor Respondent: Shri. Ajay Chandran, DR
Section 143(3)Section 148

three companies (assessees before us) and each of them was liable to be taxed on one-third of such profit as short term capital gains. Further, the Assessing Officer pointed out that the land was grossly undervalued till it was part of inventory in the books of accounts ITA No.1658/Mum/2023

Shalini Alok Agarwal, Mumbai vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 25(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2348/MUM/2023[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Dec 2023AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gagan Goyalms. Shalini Alok Agarwal, Ag 1/Ag 101, Sarnath Co. Op. Housing Society, Upper Govind Nagar, Malad (E), Mumbai- 400097, Pan: Aahpa0078K ...... Appellant Vs. Acit Cir. 25(1), Kautilya Bhawan, Near Videsh Bhawan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East) Mumbai- 400051 ..... Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rameshwar Meena, Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 54

circumstances of the case, Ld. Hon'ble CIT (A) erred in treating the Long Term Capital Gain of the assessee as Short Term Capital Gain and taxing the same as such and confirming the additions made by Ld. ACIT. 3.0 That on the facts and in the circumstances ... During the assessment proceedings AO, was not agreed with the claim of assessee and treated the transaction of sale of property as short term capital gains and disallowed the exemption claim under the head LTCG, treated the same as STCG amounting to Rs. 1,43,78,845/-. Assessee being aggrieved

Sanjay Basudeo Agarwal, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 25(1)(1), Bandra Kurla Complex

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

ITA 2398/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalesanjay Basudeo Agarwal, Vs Ito, Ward - 25(1)(1), 1601, Kanchan Ganga, Kautilya Bhawan, J.P Road, Manishnagar, G- Block,Bkc, Andheri (W), Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400053. Mumbai-400051. Pan/Gir No. : Aabpa1748E Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya.ARFor Respondent: Shri.UjjawalkumarChavhanSr.DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 68Section 69

financial statements, the Assessing Officer(AO) found that the assessee has disclosed the income from salary, income from house property, business income, short term capital gains and income from other sources. Further the assessee has disclosed and claimed the exemption U/sec10(38) of the Act being long term capital gains

Star Television Entertainment Ltd, Mumbai vs. DDIT (It) 2(1), Mumbai

ITA 1814/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Dec 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 143(3)

Transfer of Channels (i.e. Vijay TV and STAR World) Gr.No.15-16 Gr.No.15-16 held liable to tax in India as Short Term Capital Gain by holding that the channel / assets of the channel are located in India 7 Taxation of royalty income (income from transfer of Gr.No ... become academic and does not warrant separate adjudication. 22. Ground No. 15 & 16 pertain to taxability of income from transfer of channel as short term capital gains. During the year under consideration, the assessee has transferred channel i.e. Star World 24 hour English channel to another sister concern ‘Star International

Star Asia Region Fz Llc, Mumbai vs. DDIT (It) 2(1), Mumbai

ITA 1813/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Dec 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 143(3)

Transfer of Channels (i.e. Vijay TV and STAR World) Gr.No.15-16 Gr.No.15-16 held liable to tax in India as Short Term Capital Gain by holding that the channel / assets of the channel are located in India 7 Taxation of royalty income (income from transfer of Gr.No ... become academic and does not warrant separate adjudication. 22. Ground No. 15 & 16 pertain to taxability of income from transfer of channel as short term capital gains. During the year under consideration, the assessee has transferred channel i.e. Star World 24 hour English channel to another sister concern ‘Star International

Macro Township Pvt Ltd, 288-289 Mahaveer Nagar Durgapura Jaipur vs. DCIT CC -2 Jaipur, Lic Building Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 399/JPR/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Dec 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri C.M. Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar (CIT)
Section 153CSection 250Section 69

circumstances of the case in sustaining the addition of Rs 11,05,69,458/ made by the AO on account of alleged short term capital gains in the hands of the assessee without considering that: a. the appellant was never the owner of the said property b. the appellant ... circumstances of the case in sustaining the addition of Rs 3,82,33,796/ made by the AO on account of alleged short term capital gains in the hands of the assessee without considering that: a. the appellant was never the owner of the said property b. the appellant

Macro Township Pvt Ltd, 288-289 Mahaveer Nagar Durgapura Jaipur vs. DCIT CC-2 Jaipur, Lic Building Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 398/JPR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Dec 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri C.M. Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar (CIT)
Section 153CSection 250Section 69

circumstances of the case in sustaining the addition of Rs 11,05,69,458/ made by the AO on account of alleged short term capital gains in the hands of the assessee without considering that: a. the appellant was never the owner of the said property b. the appellant ... circumstances of the case in sustaining the addition of Rs 3,82,33,796/ made by the AO on account of alleged short term capital gains in the hands of the assessee without considering that: a. the appellant was never the owner of the said property b. the appellant

Macro Township Pvt Ltd, 288-289 Mahaveer Nagar Durgapura Jaipur vs. DCIT CC -2 Jaipur, Lic Building Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 397/JPR/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Dec 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri C.M. Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar (CIT)
Section 153CSection 250Section 69

circumstances of the case in sustaining the addition of Rs 11,05,69,458/ made by the AO on account of alleged short term capital gains in the hands of the assessee without considering that: a. the appellant was never the owner of the said property b. the appellant ... circumstances of the case in sustaining the addition of Rs 3,82,33,796/ made by the AO on account of alleged short term capital gains in the hands of the assessee without considering that: a. the appellant was never the owner of the said property b. the appellant

Pink City Arts and Crafts, Jaipur vs. ACIT Circle 7, Jaipur

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

ITA 428/JPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Nov 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Harshit Agrawal(C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Chaudhary (Addl.CIT)
Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

grossly erred in confirming the addition of Rs.1,26,11,719/- made by Id.AO under the head Short term capital gains, by passing ex parte order, i.e. without providing adequate opportunity of being heard. 3. That, Id. CIT(A) has further erred in confirming the action of Id.AO in assessing ... profit on sale of building/ shade etc. as short term capital gain by grossly ignoring the fact that assessee could not commence business activities on such building/shed. Appellant prays that such building/ shed could not be put to use for the purposes of business and accordingly was not eligible

Dhirubhai Nanjibhai Kachchadia, Vapi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Vapi

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 581/SRT/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Nov 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Physical Hearing) Dhirubhai Nanjibhai Kachchadia, I.T.O. Ward-2, B-9/83, Near Ambaji Temple, Vapi. Vs. Haria Hospital Road, Gidc, Vapi (Gujarat)-396395. Pan No. Acppk 1953 R Appellant/ Respondent Respondent/ Assessee

Section 139Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 2(14)Section 254(1)Section 50C(2)

01/06/2007 and sold on 26/04/2010 within a period of 36 months and the gain earned on such transfer to be treated as ‘short term capital gain’ (STCG). The assessee has purchased the land for a consideration of Rs. 4,42,000/- and incurred expenses of Rs. 21,700/-, therefore, cost ... acquisition of land was considered at Rs.4,63,700/-. Assessing Officer accordingly worked out the short term capital gain of Rs. 2.68 crores (Rs. 2,73,16,000 – 4,63,700). On the basis of such working, the Assessing Officer issued show cause notice as to why short term capital

Dy. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Mumbai vs. Quantum Advisors Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed

ITA 2438/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dcit-1(3)(1), M/S Quantum Advisors Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 535, 5Th Floor, 503, Regent Chambers, Nariman Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Point, Mumbai-400021. M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacq 0281 C Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Niraj SethFor Respondent: Mr. Rajendra Chandekar, DR

outflow for the investors by way of brokerage 0.3 of brokerage 0.3 - 0.75 %, securities transaction tax 0.125% and lastly % and lastly 'tax on short term capital gains' 15% (which add up to around 15.625% 'tax on short term capital gains' 15% (which add up to around 15.625% 'tax on short

Amit Laroya, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle International Tax (2)(2)(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 1457/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Us, The Only Effective Issue To Be Decided In This Appeal Is As To Whether The Salary Income Earned By The Assessee In The Sum Of Rs.5,11,71,307/-Is Eligible For Exemption In Terms Of Article 15(1) Of India-Korea Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (Dtaa) For The Exercise Of Employment In Korea In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Instant Case. 3. We Have Heard The Rival Submissions & Perused The Material Available On Record. The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2018-19 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.57,69,390/-. The Ld. Ao On Perusal Of Form 26As Of The Assessee Observed That The Assessee Was In Receipt Of Rs.5,40,07,330/- Under The Head

Section 144C(5)Section 192Section 9

does not require any specific adjudication. 9. The ground No.6 raised by the assessee is seeking concessional rate of tax @ 15% on short term capital gains declared by the assessee. 10. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. It is not in dispute that ... short term capital gain declared by the assessee had duly suffered Securities Transaction Tax ( STT) and thereby the assessee would be liable to tax in terms of section 111 A of the Act. From the perusal of the orders of the lower authorities, we find that there is no finding

J B Advani and Company Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai

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

ITA 2544/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Nov 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalej.B Advani & Company Vs. Acit, Circle 2(2)(1), Pvt Ltd.,Ador House, 4Th Aayakar Bhavan, Floor, 6 K, Dubashmarg, Mumbai-400021. Kalghoda,Liongate,Fort, Mumbai-400001. Pan/Gir No. : Aaacj1966D Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. Paras Savla & Shri PratikFor Respondent: Shri.G.J.Ninawe.Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234DSection 244ASection 32Section 32(2)Section 70Section 71(2)

upholding the order of learned AO and not allowing the set off of unabsorbed depreciation brought forward from earlier years against the short-term capital gains of Rs.15,11,940 for the relevant assessment year, ignoring the fact J.B Advani & Company Pvt Ltd, Mumbai. that as per the provisions ... against the income of the current year, whereas the assessee has disclosed the income under the head, income from house property, short term capital gains and income from other sources and the business loss of Rs. 2,27,37524/-.Further the A.O found that after adjusting the business losses against

ITO, Thane vs. Rajendra Hastimal Mehta, Thane

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

ITA 2400/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Nov 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleito, Ward – 2(1), Vs. Shri Rajendrahastimal Room No. 25, B-Wing Mehta (Huf), 6Th Floor, Ashar It Park Flat No.101/102, Wagle Industrial Estate, C-62, Sector-5, Shanti Thane (W)-400604, Nagar, Mira Road (E), Maharashtra. Thane-401107, Maharashtra. Pan/Gir No. : Aaahr4446M Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri.Rajendra.H.Mehta.ARFor Respondent: Shri .G.J. Ninawe.Sr. DR

Housing Finance Corporation Ltd, the assessee has incurred Loss of Rs.42,138/-and after claim of setoff of loss with the short term capital gains, the net income of Rs.31,448/- was offered for taxation. The AO dealt on the various facts of transactions and the price trend on stock ... exchange, the report of the kolkata investigation wing and has doubted the earning of Short Term Capital Gains. The A.O Shri Rajendra Hastimal Mehta (HUF), Mumbai. observed that there is a no correlation of the price rise and fall of the share price and was not satisfied with the explanations

DCIT Central Circle-30, New Delhi vs. Urmila Goyal, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1650/DEL/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Prateek Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 44A

1650/Del/2020 : A.Y. 2013-14 (Revenue Appeal) 17. The only issue pertains to addition made on account of Short term capital gains and interest earned with respect to the sale of the property B-15. This issue has been interlinked for the A.Y. 2011-12 wherein the ld. CIT(A) accepted