“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

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalgaon vs. Sidharth Ratanlal Bafna, Jalgaon

In the result, all the above 6 appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and

ITA 1565/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: S/Shri Suchek Anchaliya andFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde, CIT

Section 10(38)Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153A

transactions relating to the sale and purchase of the scrip, details of STT paid, audited books of account, statement showing the computation of short term capital gain, details of trade order, trade name, security quantity etc. These details are also produced before me as part of the Paper Book ... office premises of more than 32 share broking entities who have accepted that they were actively involved in bogus long term capital gain / short term capital gain scam. He submitted that one such action was carried out in the case of M/s PFLIL, a Hyderabad based company on which survey

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalgaon vs. Sidharth Ratanlal Bafna, Jalgaon

ITA 1561/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: S/Shri Suchek Anchaliya and Tushar NagoriFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde, CIT

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153A

office premises of more than 32 share broking entities who have accepted that they were actively involved in bogus long term capital gain / short term capital gain scam. He submitted that one such action was carried out in the case of M/s PFLIL, a Hyderabad based company on which survey ... subsequent actions revealed that the shares of the company were manipulated to generate bogus long CO Nos.2 to 5/PUN/2025 term capital gain / short term capital gain for various beneficiaries. Referring to the staternents of Shri. P Amresh Kumar, MD of PFLIL, Shri Abhinandan Jain, Director of PFLIL and Shri. Naresh

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalgaon vs. Sidharth Ratanlal Bafna, Jalgaon

ITA 1560/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: S/Shri Suchek Anchaliya and Tushar NagoriFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde, CIT

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153A

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalgaon vs. Sidharth Ratanlal Bafna, Jalgaon

In the result, all the above 6 appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and

ITA 1555/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Respondent: S/Shri Suchek Anchaliya and

Section 10(38)Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153A

Sanjay Popatlal Jain, Mumbai vs. Circle 19 (3) Mumbai (Mum-C-169-1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5189/MUM/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

For Appellant: Shri Ashish JainFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr.DR

Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

Assessment Year (AY) 2016-17, wherein the assessee has challenged the sustenance of addition of Rs. 41,81,752/- under the head “Short Term Capital Gains” as well as levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 („the Act‟). 2. Briefly the facts ... transaction of Rs. 41,81,752/- in respect of penny stock shares of M/s. Kushal Tradelink Limited should not be added as Short Term Capital Gain in the hands of the assessee. However, there was no response from the assessee and thereafter, the AO proceeded and completed the assessment proceedings

Sanjay Popatlal Jain, Mumbai vs. Circle 19 (3) Mumbai (Mum-C-169-1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5188/MUM/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

For Appellant: Shri Ashish JainFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr.DR

Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

Income Tax Officer-41(2)(4), Mumbai, Bkc vs. Rbi Employees Bhagvati Coop Housing Society Ltd, Mulund East, Mumbai

ITA 4073/MUM/2025[2011]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2025

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

For Appellant: Shri Fenil BhattFor Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kosuri

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(47)(v)Section 271(1)(c)Section 48Section 50CSection 53A

erred in deleting the addition of Rs.4,97,63,657/- made by the Assessing Officer as Short Term Capital Gain on account of transfer of development rights under a registered development agreement, despite clear applicability of Section 2(47)(v) read with Section 50C of the Income ... with Section 147 of the Act whereby an addition of INR.4,97,60,657/- was made in the hands of the Assessee as Short Term Capital Gains taxable at the rate of 30%. 4. Aggrieved by the above addition made by the Assessing Officer, the Assessee filed appeal before

Income Tax Officer-41(2)(4), Mumbai, Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc vs. Rbi Employees Bhagvati Co-Op Housing Society Ltd., Mulund East, Mumbai

ITA 3595/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri Fenil BhattFor Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kosuri

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(47)(v)Section 271(1)(c)Section 48Section 50CSection 53A

Seshank Mahadev, Chennai vs. Deputy Director of Income Tax, CPC Bengaluru

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

ITA 2274/CHNY/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Oct 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2274/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2024-25 Seshank Mahadev, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ak 27, Tas Enclave, E2, Golden King Corporate Ward 3(1), Villa Apartments, Anna Nagar, Chennai. Chennai 600 040. [Pan:Olwps5532Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Varadharajan, F/O Of Assessee ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri C.P. Solomon, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 22.10.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24.10.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 02.06.2025 Passed By The Addl./Jcit(A), Indore For The Assessment Year 2024-25. 2. At The Outset, We Note That The Cpc Denied The Rebate Claimed By The Assessee Under Section 87A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] Vide Intimation Order Under Section 143(1) Of The Act Dated 12.11.2024. Against The Intimation Order, The Assessee Preferred An 2

For Appellant: Shri Varadharajan, F/o of assesseeFor Respondent: Shri C.P. Solomon, JCIT

Section 111ASection 112ASection 115BSection 143(1)Section 250Section 3Section 87A

under section 87A of the Act nor under section 111A of the Act for denial of rebate in respect of tax payable on short term capital gains arising from transfer of listed equity shares taxable at special rates under section 111A of the Act. Accordingly, we hold that the assessee ... eligible for rebate under section 87A of the Act even though the income includes short term capital gain taxable under section 111A of the Act, which is evident from page 3 of the impugned order. 5. The next issue is with regard to long term capital on equity shares/ units

Balachandra Builders Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Corp. Circle-1(2), Chennai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 989/CHNY/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Oct 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 989/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2010-11 V. Balchandra Builders Private Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of No.10 Venkataratnam Nagar, Adyar, Income Tax, Chennai- 600 020. Corporate Circle 1(2), Chennai. [Pan: Aaacb6727A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By Mr.N.Arjun Raj, Advocate, : ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By Ms.R.Anitha, Addl.Cit : सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 28.07.2025 : घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement 21.10.2025

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80I

passed order u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 dated 19.01.2016 making an addition of Rs.33,44,22,240/- on account of short term capital gains / business income and Rs.1,15,12,986/- on account of excess opening stock. 3. The order of the assessment is challenged before the Ld.CIT

Sicpa India Private Limited, Delhi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle 22(2), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 330/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal[ Sicpa India Private Limited, Asst. Cit, 308-312, Mercantile House, Circle -22(2), 15 K.G. Marg, Vs. Delhi. Delhi-110001. Pan-Aadcs6121L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Akash Singhal, Ca Department By Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 22/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17/10/2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-24, New Delhi [Cit(A), In Short] Dated 28.11.2024 In Appeal No. Nfac/2019-20/10183865 Arising Out Of Order Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As ‘The Act’) Dated 30.09.2022 For Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Is A Company Engaged In The Business Of Manufacturing & Distribution Of Security Inks. The Return Of Income For The Year Under Appeal Was E-Filed On 15.02.2021 Declaring Total Income At Rs.6,74,74,000/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Taken Up For Scrutiny & The Order Was Passed U/S 143(3) On 30.09.2022 Wherein Disallowance Of Rs.23,09,391/- Was Made On Account Of Dividend Distributions Tax & Educational Cess Claimed By The Assessee As Sicpa India Private Limited Vs. Acit Expenses & Further Disallowance U/S 14A Of Rs.25,56,078/- Was Made & The Total Income Of The Assessee Was Assessed At Rs.7,71,05,940/-.

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234CSection 270A

generating taxable income also as explained by the Sicpa India Private Limited vs. ACIT learned counsel for the assessee in the form of short term capital gains etc. In this regard, the learned DR has submitted that no such taxable income however was actually earned by the assesses during

DCIT, Circle 3(4), Mumbai vs. Bajaj Auto Limited, Mumbai

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

ITA 3623/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Ms. Vasanti PatelFor Respondent: Shri Satyaprakash R. Singh, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 36(4)(vii)

verify and allow an additional claim of 1,04,79,969/- towards stamp duty as part of the cost of acquisition for computing short-term capital gains, when such claim was not made in the original return of income nor through a revised return, in contravention of the decision ... claim that the stamp duty paid on purchase of shares is to be reduced from the sale consideration for the purpose of computing short term capital gains. The AO, vide assessment order, rejected such an additional claim by the assessee on the basis that such claim was not made through

Mohan Lal Yadav, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward -1(1), Jaipur

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

ITA 1223/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 1223/JPR/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Shri Mohan Lal Yadav Vs. The ITO C/o Shri R.S. Poonia, CA Ward 1(1) D-82-B, Siwad Area, Krishna Marg Jaipur Bapu Nagar, Jaipur - 302015 स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं. / PAN/GIR No.: ARMPY 7388Q अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by : Ms. Payal Jhorar, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by : Shri Ga

For Appellant: Ms. Payal Jhorar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR

Section 69A

erred in law and facts in confirming the addition made by Ld. A.O amounting to Rs. 29,78,334/- on account of Short Term Capital Gain from sale on immovable property. The addition of Rs. 29,78,334/- made to the income of the appellant on this count is wrong ... initiated under Section 147 read with Section 144 of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 2014-15. The case revolves around short term capital gains and denial of claim of agricultural income. The Assessing Officer issued multiple statutory notices under Sections

Harshadkumar Hargovandas Patel, Kalol vs. The ITO, Ward-4, Mehsana

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

ITA 125/AHD/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Adv. & ShriFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit, Sr. D.R

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 148Section 55A

District Valuation Officer (DV). 2. The ld. CIT(A) grossly erred on facts in confirming addition of Rs.3,05,400/-, being short term capital gain on sale of NA land situated at Block No. 1165, Village: Chhatral (in which Appellant held 1/3 share) by taking gross cost of purchase ... while framing the assessment, the Assessing Officer made a disallowance of Rs.3,05,400/- towards cost of improvement and expenditure claimed while computing Short-Term Capital Gain on another property sold for Rs.50,00,000/-. The Assessing Officer noted that the assessee had produced handwritten bills to support the claim

Mr. Giliyal Chandrashekhara Bhat, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 24(1)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 750/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri G.C. Bhat, CAFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

give directions to the ITO to adjust the assessed business loss against the income under the head income from other sources and short-term capital gains.” 3. We have considered the submissions of both sides and perused the material available on record. The brief facts of the case are that ... also rejected the claim of the assessee of set off of unabsorbed business losses under the head income from other sources and short term capital gains. 4. The learned CIT(A), vide impugned order, dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee in the absence of documentary evidence against the addition

Syed Nazim Moinuddin Quazi, Nagpur vs. ITO Ward 2(3), Nagpur

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

ITA 503/NAG/2025[2020 - 2021]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur10 Oct 2025

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalesayed Nazim Maoinuddin Quazi, Pltono.11–A & House Noquadri Enclave, Opp. Suri Laws Behind Police Line Takli ……………. Appellant Nagpur 440 013, Maharashtra. Pan–Aaapq2442A V/S Income Tax Officer ……………. Respondent Ward–2(3), Nagpur, Maharashtra. Assessee By:Ms.Alfiya Rozie, A.R. Revenue By :Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Ms.Alfiya Rozie, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)

produce the details of cost of acquisition, date of execution, agreement details and, therefore, made the addition of Rs.36,00,000/– as short term capital gains and assessed the total income of Rs.42,65,330/- and passed the order u/sec 143(3) r.w.s. 144AB of the Act dated 26/09/2022. Aggrieved

Prakash Sheshrao Wankhede, Koradi Kamptee, Nagpur vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(4), Nagpur

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

ITA 461/NAG/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur10 Oct 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleprakash Sheshrao Wankhede, Khaprikoradi, Ward No.6 Near Hanuman Mandir Tehsil Kamptee, Koradi (Nv) ……………. Appellant Nagpur -441 111, Maharashtra. Pan–Abypw7048B V/S Income Tax Officer ……………. Respondent Ward–3(4), Nagpur Assessee By: None Revenue By : Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Sr.Dr

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Sr.DR

Section 54F

sustained by Hon'ble CIT(A) by ignoring that the assessment wherein the sale consideration of the agriculture land was considered as short-term capital gain & without giving benetit of cost of acquisition by the Ld. AO in the absence of purchase deed while the assessee had specifically stated that ... filed the details on various dates. Whereas the assesseing officer was not satisfied with the explanations and material evidences and made addition of Short term capital gains of Rs.29,00,000/-and similarly salary and commission income aggregating to Rs.1,92,333/- and assessed the total income of Rs.30

Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3), Vijayawada vs. Sreelakshmi Musunuru, Penamaluru

ITA 278/VIZ/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam08 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Balakrishnan S.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.278/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14) Income Tax Officer, Vs. Sreelakshmi Musunuru, Ward-2(3), Penamaluru. Vijayawada. Pan: Aojpm4884K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sri C. Subrahmanyam, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149(1)(b)Section 69

erred in deleting the addition made of Rs. 1,61,57,000/- by the FAO on account of Short Term Capital Gain without appreciating the fact that the burden of proof lies with the assessee to substantiate the claim made by her by providing necessary supporting documentary evidences / material ... Musunuru in the absence of any documentary evidence regarding its cost of acquisition, held the entire amount of the sale consideration as the Short Term Capital Gains (for short, “STCG”) in the hands of the assessee. Accordingly, the AO vide his order passed U/s. 147 r.w.s 144B

Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above and the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 901/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.C. Srivastava, Spl. Counsel for the Department

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 32Section 35Section 43B

declared by the assessee after claiming benefit of indexation. 9.2 That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in assessing short- term capital gain of Rs.6,90,68,982/- as business income. 9.3 That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in holding that investment ... basis of period of holding. In the return of income, the appellant claimed long-term capital loss of Rs.220 crores and net short term capital gain of Rs.6.91 crores. The assessing officer however, simply following the assessment order for AY 2010-11 treated the aforesaid “capital gains” as “business income

M/S Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above and

ITA 287/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.C. Srivastava, Spl. Counsel for the Department

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 35Section 43B