“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

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., 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 1024/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 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

Sanjay Motiramji Muley, Nagpur vs. ITO Ward (4)(3), Nagpur

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4/NAG/2025[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur07 Oct 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalesanjay Motiramji Muley, Ward No.7, Mahajan Pura ……………. Appellant Bhandara Road, Pardi Nagpur 440008. Pan – Akdpm6463G V/S Income Tax Officer ……………. Respondent Ward–4(4), Nagpur Assessee By : Ms. Alfiya Rozie.Ar Revenue By :Shri Surjit Kumar Saha.Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Ms. Alfiya Rozie.ARFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha.Sr.DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 50C

assessee, the Assessing Officer considering the information available on record has invoked the provisions of section 144 of the Act and computed short term capital gain in respect of the immovable property adopting the guideline value as per SRO under section 50C of the Act and made addition of short ... sold the immovable property and the income has to be treated as business income, whereas, the Assessing Officer has treated it as short term capital gain. Further the assessee has a good case on merits and prayed for granting of opportunity to substantiate the case with evidences and information before

Bidyut Prakas Bhattacharya, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 52(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 2016/KOL/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Oct 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 250Section 90

final revised return at pages 22 to 27 of the paper book was shown at Rs. ‘NIL’ on account of short term capital gains earned outside India and set off of brought forward losses for A.Y. 2016-17. It was submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) did not adjudicate this

Smt. Suman Choudhary, Jaipur vs. The Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 687/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Tarun Mittal, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl.CIT

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 68

Thus, the assessee has incurred loss of (-) Rs.4,99,027/-. Accordingly, the assessee has declared the said loss (-) Rs.4,99,027/- as Short Term Capital Gains under the head 'Capital Gains'. Ld. AO in that proceeding also noted the assessee deposited ... Thus, the assessee has incurred loss (-) Rs. 4,99,027/-. Accordingly, the assessee has declared the above loss (-) Rs. 4,99,027/- as Short Term Capital Gains under the head ‘Capital Gains’. ” Thus, ld.AO himself admitted that assessee duly declared the Short Term Capital loss

Puttaraju Hemavathi, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(3)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 917/BANG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2015-16 Puttaraju Hemavathi 113, 1St Cros, 14Th Block Bda Layout Ito Nagarbhavi Vs. Ward 6(3)(1) Bengaluru 560 072 Bangalore Pan No : Amdph5733N Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Ms. Gana, A.R. Respondent By : Sri Subramanian, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 30.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.09.2025 O R D E R Per Keshav Dubey: This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac Dated 5.6.2024 Vide Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1065398501(1) Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: Puttaraju Hemavathi, Bengaluru Page 2 Of 11 Puttaraju Hemavathi, Bengaluru Page 3 Of 11

For Appellant: Ms. Gana, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Subramanian, D.R

Section 144Section 148Section 250

acquisition, improvements, if any made to the property, expenses if any incurred, the entire sale consideration of Rs.55,80,000/- was treated as short term capital gains in the hands of the assessee and Puttaraju Hemavathi, Bengaluru Page 9 of 11 accordingly the AO concluded the assessment u/s 144 r.w.s ... treating the Puttaraju Hemavathi, Bengaluru Page 10 of 11 entire sales consideration amounting to Rs.55,80,000/- as short term capital gain. Further, it is also an undisputed fact that the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal of the assessee by not condoning the delay in filing the appeal

Attur Muneerappa Krishnappa, Attur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1501/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2018-19 Attur Muneerappa Krishnappa No.58, Attur Layout, 6Th Main Attur Post, Yelahanka Ito Vs. Bangalore 560 064 Ward 6(1)(1) Bangalore Pan No : Ahopk0953D Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Sri Srinivasareddy B - Ca Respondent By : Sri Balusamy N, -Jcit Date Of Hearing : 24.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.09.2025

For Appellant: Sri Srinivasareddy B - CAFor Respondent: Sri Balusamy N, -JCIT

Section 147Section 148Section 250

Further, the assessee was asked to furnish the detailed statement of capital gains arising out of the above transaction, computation of long or short term capital gains, copy of the sale deed, copy of the purchase deed, cost of acquisition/cost of improvement/expenditures incurred wholly and exclusively in connection with transfer ... evidences. In absence of any such details, the sum of Rs. 70,00,000/- was brought to tax under the head Income from short term capital gains. The AO accordingly concluded the assessment proceedings u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act on a total income of Rs.70

Tata Communications Limited, Mumbai vs. Principle Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai

In the result, the question of law referred to the Special Bench is answered in favour of the assessee

ITA 3515/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Arun Khodpiatata Communications Limited Pr. Cit, Videsh Sanchar Bhavan, Mumbai-1 Vs. M. G. Road, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 Pan/Gir No. Aaacv 2808 C (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri J. D. Mistri Respondent By : Shri Ritesh Misra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 25.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.09.2025 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey: The Present Appeal, At The Instance Of The Assessee, Assails Order Dated 21.03.2025, Passed U/S. 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ For Short), By Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (‘Ld. Pcit’ For Short), Pertaining To The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2018-19. 2. Though The Assessee Has Raised Multiple Grounds, Both On Jurisdictional Issues As Well As On Merits, However, There Is Consensus Between The Parties That The Appeal Can Be Decided On Merits, In Which Event, There Is No Need To Go Into Various Other Issues Raised In Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri J. D. MistriFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT DR

Section 112Section 143(3)Section 263Section 50

capital gain. He observed, as per section 50 of the Act, gain derived from sale of depreciable assets has to be treated as Short Term Capital Gain (‘STCG’ for short) and taxed at the rate applicable to STCG. Whereas, the assessee has computed the tax liability in terms with section ... arising out of sale of long term capital asset is chargeable at the rate 4 Tata Communications Limited vs. Pr. CIT applicable to short term capital gains or rates applicable to long term capital gains under section 112 of the Act?” 9. While answering the question referred to, ld. Special

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Nungambakkam vs. Sathyabama Ramachandran, Alwarthirunagar

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 821/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member), SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri A. Raghava Simhan, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasam, JCIT

Section 147Section 148

above facts and circumstances of the case as well as judicial precedents, the addition made by the Assessing Officer towards levy of short term capital gains tax at ₹.2,38,63,452/- and confirmed by the CIT(A) stands deleted. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed

Jamal Mohideen Haroon Imran Khan, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-1(2), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1964/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1962, 1963 & 1964/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Jamal Mohideen Haroon Imran Khan, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 15/7, Vijayaragava Road First Street, Non Corporate Ward 1(2) T. Nagar, Chennai 600 017. Chennai. [Pan:Aaopi4540B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri Raghav Menon, Advocate & : Shri Gautam Venkatanarayanan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Sandhya Rani Kure, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 17.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23.09.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against Different Orders Dated 06.03.2025, 27.02.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2017-18 Respectively.

For Respondent: Ms. Sandhya Rani Kure, JCIT

Section 147Section 154Section 270A

condoned and admitted the appeal for adjudication. 5. At the outset, we not that the Assessing Officer made two additions on account of short term capital gains and also being the difference between total sales consideration and the market price of the immovable property vide para

Jamal Mohideen Haroon Imran Khan, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-1(2), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1963/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

For Respondent: Ms. Sandhya Rani Kure, JCIT

Section 147Section 154Section 270A

Jamal Mohideen Haroon Imran Khan, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-1(2), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1962/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

For Respondent: Ms. Sandhya Rani Kure, JCIT

Section 147Section 154Section 270A

Indira Bhatt, Kaushambi vs. Ward 2(1)(2) AO, Ghaziabad

Appeal is allowed

ITA 4974/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 4974/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Indira Bhatt, Vs Income Tax Officer, 505, Satpura Apartment, Ward-2(1)(2), Kaushambhi, Ghaziabad-201010 Ghaziabad-201002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aixpb3201D Assessee By: None Revenue By : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 23.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 23.09.2025 Order This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2012-13, Arises Against The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2025-26/1077045664(1) Dated 15.06.2025, In Proceedings U/S 147 R.W.S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 50C

proceeded ex-parte. 3. Learned departmental representative vehemently argues during the course of hearing that both the learned lower authorities have rightly computed short term capital gains of Rs.35,02,782/- in the assessee’s case after invoking section 50C of the Act involving sale consideration of Rs.42 ... other sale consideration forthcoming in the case herein. I accordingly accept the assessee’s instant sole substantive ground to delete the impugned short term capital gains addition in very terms. 5. This assessee’s appeal is allowed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 23/09/2025. (Satbeer Singh Godara) Judicial Member

Income Tax Officer 22(3)(6), Mumbai vs. Sachin Durgesh Chheda, Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the revenue stands

ITA 3376/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain

Section 139(1)Section 250Section 68

consideration was filed u/s 139(1) on 27th July 2018 declaring total income of Rs.22,85,660/-.The Appellant had declared the Net Short Term Capital Gain on sale of equity shares amounting to Rs.3,18,477/- which includes short term capital loss of Rs.7,88,133/- 3 A. Facts ... transaction are still done on Exchange as on today. 5. Copy of computation for A.Y.17-18,A.Y.19-20 showing that we are regular investors & earning Short term capital gain which is offer for tax .It is not single transactions or one time transactions of shares that we have done

Smt. Sheetal Rashmin Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The I. T. O. Ward-2, Gandhidham

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

ITA 182/RJT/2022[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot19 Sept 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

For Appellant: Shri Divyang Shah, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 142ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 253(5)

determined as under Income from other sources: Winning amount of television contest game as discussed above In para.5 Rs. 14,00,030/- Short term capital gain as worked out as above in para 6. Rs. 4,16,746/- Total income ... jewellery sold by the appellant. i.e., Rs. 4,16,790/- represents her income. This has properly been treated by the AO as short term capital gains and I find no infirmity in the order of the AO. This ground of appeal is dismissed. 7. In the result, the appeal

Kamal Kant, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-54(1), Delhi

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

ITA 3594/DEL/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Sept 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Sudhir Kumar & Sh. Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2009-10 Kamal Kant Vs. Income Tax Officer Ward K-15 South Extension –One 54(1) Civic Centre Delhi New Delhi 110049 Pan No. Aaipk 1374K (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 234ASection 43(5)(d)Section 70Section 70aSection 71(2)

said non-speculative business loss on F&O derivative trading business against other heads of income being the income from short term capital gains earned on the sale of shares and other income earned by the assessee excluding salary income earned by the assessee in view of the provisions ... prohibition on adjustment of losses incurred by the assessee in F&O trading business against the short term capital gains earned by the assessee on sale of shares and other income earned by the assessee except salary income as there is a specific bar and prohibition raised by the statue

Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(1), Hyderabad vs. Stypack Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed, while the cross-objection of the assessee company is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 997/HYD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Us:

Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 68

आयकर अपीलीय न्यायाधिकरण में, हैदराबाद ‘ए’ बेंच, हैदराबाद IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘A’ Bench, Hyderabad श्री रवीश

Padmaben Kantilal Ranpara, Rajkot vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(1)(2) Rajkot, Rajkot

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed”

ITA 516/RJT/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot11 Sept 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

For Appellant: Shri P. J. Raiyani Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Dheeraj Kumar Gupta, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 111ASection 115BSection 11SSection 143(1)Section 87A

516/Rjv/2025 Padmaben K. Ranapara “The learned CIT(A) has erred in not allowing rebate u/s. 87A of Rs. 23,653 on short Term Capital Gains of Rs. 3,46,992/- u/s. 111A. The tax on short term capital gains w/s. 111A @15% is Rs. 23,653 against which rebate ... assessee, a resident individual, filed a revised return of income for A.Y. 2024-25 declaring total income of Rs.6,76,402/-, comprising short-term capital gain on listed equity shares taxable at 15% under section 111A, and opted for taxation under the new regime under section 115BAC

Torrent Investments Limited (Formerly Known As Torrent Investments Private Limited), Ahmedabad vs. The Pr.CIT, Ahmedabad-3, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1094/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Shri Sher Singh, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 80G

Long Term Capital Loss (LTCL). The assessee while treating the loss as Short Term in nature had set off the loss against Short Term Capital Gains (STCG), thus returning net Short Term Capital Gain of 14,35,43,906/-. Since as per the Ld. PCIT the loss ... nature of Long Term Capital Loss, the assessee was not entitled to claim set off of the same against Short Term Capital Gain and in effect, therefore, the Short Term Capital Gain returned by the assessee was short assessed to the extent of Short Term Capital Loss

Rambabu Sharma, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(1), Jaipur

ITA 561/JPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Id.Cit(A)", On The Observation That Though This Ground Of Appeal Was Part Of Form 35 Filed In Physical Form, However, Due To Technical Glitch The Relevant Ground Was Missing In The Form 35 Electronically Filed. However, Appellant Prays That Such Ground Of Appeal Were Duly Filed As Attachment Alongwith Form 35 Filed Electronically Which Was Omitted To Be Typed In "Form Of Appeal" Inadvertently.

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR

Section 145(3)

erred in confirming an action of ld. AO in making an addition of Rs.1,27,83,078/- under the head "Short Term Capital gain" ignoring the fact that the land sold by appellant was "Agriculture Land" and used for the purposes of agriculture activities, which doesn't fulfill the criteria ... Ground of Appeal no.5, the appellant challenges the action of the AO in making addition of Rs.1,27,83,078/- under the head "Short Term Capital Gain (STCG) ignoring the fact that the land sold by the appellant was agricultural land used for the purpose of agricultural activities which does

Baldeep Singh, Chandigarh vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5(1), Chandigarh

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 199/CHANDI/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 199/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Baldeep Singh, The Acit, C/O Tej Mohan Singh, बनाम Circle 5(1), Advocate Chandigarh Vs. #527, Sector 10-D. Chandigarh "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Adyps3636F अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent ( Physical Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Sh. Tej Mohan Singh, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Sh. Vivek Varadhan, Addl. Cit, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 03.07.2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 03.09.2025 आदेश/Order Per Krinwant Sahay, Am: Appeal In This Case Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 10.01.2025 Of Addl./Jcit(A)-1. Nagpur For The A.Y. 2012-13. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under: -

For Appellant: Sh. Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Vivek Varadhan, Addl. CIT, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

arbitrary and unjustified. 5. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has failed to appreciate that the assessee had already declared the short term capital gains of Rs. 1,53,192/-on the sale of shares of VMS Industries Limited while filing the return of income and as such ... original Income Tax Return and then a return in response to notice u/s 148, by declaring the same income under the heads business, short term capital gains, long term capital gains and other sources Copy of Computation of Income already filed, is enclosed herewith. 199-Chd-2025 Baldeep Singh, Chandigarh