“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

Atyant Capital India Fund-I, Mumbai vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax (International) Tax Circle 1(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 573/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Sunil M LalaFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 251Section 74

Mumbai) (SB), submitted that different transactions will result in different source of income and therefore each transaction resulting in short-term capital gains or loss and long-term capital gains or loss should be viewed separately and thus, the assessee has a choice to seek the benefit ... short-term capital gains/loss and long term capital gains/loss are different sources of income, falling under the same head "capital gains". Even under short term capital gains, different transactions will be different sources of income resulting in short term capital gains/loss. Likewise, different transactions of long term capital assets will

Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax It 3.1.2, Kautilya Bhawan, Mumbai vs. Kuwait Investment Authority, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4207/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Farookh V. Irani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 115ASection 143(3)

Assessee had shown net Long Term Capital Loss of Rs.209,90,78,548/-besides interest income and exempt dividend income. Assessee has Short Term Capital Gain of Rs.1019,76,71,709/- and loss of Rs.1178,60,80,410/- on STT paid shares, resulting in net loss on STT paid shares ... does not prescribe any order in which specific short-term capital loss can be set-off against specific short-term capital gains and in absence of such description, the interpretation of provision in favour of taxpayer should be adopted. Also, relied in the case of First State Investment (Hong Kong

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Khaitan Holdings (Mauritius) Ltd., Mauritius

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 3275/DEL/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri Girish Agrawal, Am Dy. Cit, Circle-2(1)(2) (Intl. Tax.) M/S. Khaitan Holdings (Mauritius) New Delhi Ltd. (Erstwhile Black Lion Ltd.) C/O. Axis Fiduciary Ltd. Vs. 2Nd Floor, The Axis, 26 Cybercity Ebene 722 201, Mauritius

For Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar (Sr. DR)

Section 142(1)Section 144C(3)Section 147Section 148

required under the provisions of Income-tax Rule 46. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that the Short term capital gains of INR 88,52,46,554 shall not be taxable. 5. The Ld CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating the fact that the assessee ... r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 12.05.2014, determining the total income at Rs.88,52,46,554/- on account of short term capital gain on sale of shares. 5. Against the assessment order so passed, the assessee preferred an appeal before learned First Appellate Authority, inter alia, challenging

Murali Mohan Reddy Bonthu, Vijayawada vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Vijayawada

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 266/VIZ/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam22 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.266/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18) Murali Mohan Reddy Bonthu V. Income Tax Officer – Ward – 3(1) 14/4, Flat No. 503 Cr Building, 1St Floor Annex Sree Satya Sai Towers M.G. Road, Vijayawada – 522002 Andhra Pradesh Main Road Nunna Andhra Pradesh - 521212 [Pan:Aiopb5077E] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Shri I. Kama Sastry, Ca राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr.Aparna Villuri, Sr.Ar

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 54F

relevant to this assessment year. 2. The Assessment Unit, National FacelessAssessment Centre is not justified in bring to tax Rs.41,07,000/- as short term capital gains from transfer of five residential flats out of 11 flats received by the assessee as a consideration from joint development agreement executed ... Centre is not justified in confirming the same. 3. The Assessment Unit, National FacelessAssessment Centre is not justified in computing tax on the short term capital gains of Rs.41,07,000 at the rate of 60% under section 115BBE 4. All the above grounds of appeal are mutually exclusive

Shanthi Violet Rodrigues, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1475/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year: 2020-21 Shanthi Violet Rodrigues, The Income Tax Officer, Cp4 Wing-1, 4178, Ward-4(2)(1), Sobha City Casa, Bengaluru. Paradise Enclave, Devin Paradise, Vs. Jalavayuvihar, Bengaluru-560043. Pan No : Avmpr6706M Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, Ca Respondent By : Sri Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate-Standing Counsel For Revenue Date Of Hearing : 21.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.08.2025 O R D E R Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote: This Is An Appeal Filed By Shanthi Violet Rodrigues Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (Nfac) (In Short “Ld. Cit(A)”) Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”) For Asst Year 2020-21 On 05/06/2025 Emanating From Assessment Order Dated 24/02/2025 Passed U/S. 147 R.W.S 144B Of The Act. Submissions Of The Ld. Ar: 2. The Ld. Ar Invited Our Attention To The Assessment Order Dated 24/02/2025 For Asst. Year 2020-21. The Ld. Ar Submitted

For Appellant: Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, CA

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250

date of purchase of the impugned property. However, in the assessment order the Ld. AO has taxed this income under the head ‘short term capital gains’. This is incorrect and bad in law as the property was purchased in 2007 and hence the asset qualifies for long term capital gains

Parakkadath Simon Varghese, Thrissur vs. Income Tax Office, International Taxation, Kochi Circle

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes and the stay application stands dismissed

ITA 533/COCH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm & Sa No. 72/Coch/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Parakkadath Simon Varghese .......... Appellant Parakkadath House, Koratty South, Thrissur [Pan: Afgpv9060G] Vs. Dcit (International Taxation), Kochi .......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri Gibi C. George, Advocate Revenue By: Ms. Neethu S., Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 18.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 20.08.2025

For Appellant: Shri Gibi C. George, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neethu S., Sr. DR

Section 12A(1)(ac)Section 143(3)Section 282(1)

against the sale consideration shown at Rs. 1,08,48,000/-. The AO also made addition of short term capital gains of Rs. 27,48,000/- on sale of land as the appellant had failed to furnish information called for in support of the return of income submitted

Smt Sushama Rajesh Rao, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-5(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 49/BANG/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year: 2012-13 Sushama Rajesh Rao, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner No.159, Priyadarshani, R. T. Nagar, Of Income Tax, Mla Layout, Circle – 6(2)(1), Bangalore – 560 032. Bangalore. Pan : Acypr 5251 J Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri. V. Chandrashekar, Advocate Respondent By : Shri. Muthu Shankar, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bangalore. Date Of Hearing : 23.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.08.2025

For Appellant: Shri. V. Chandrashekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Muthu Shankar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore

Section 234BSection 250Section 49Section 50(2)Section 50C

alleged long term capital gains arising on sale of the agricultural land as against the returned short term capital gains of Rs. Nil on the facts and circumstances of the case. 8. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified in holding that the learned Assessing Officer ... Rs.8,36,25,000/- as alleged long term capital gain arising on sale of the agricultural land as against the short term capital gain of Rs. Nil. He specifically stated that the agricultural land acquired by the assessee is received as a gift from her husband , which is transferred

Procter and Gamble Health Private Limited, Mumbai vs. The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -8, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2326/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti Vissanji & Shri Ajay BhandariFor Respondent: Shri R A Dhyani, CIT D/R

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263Section 40Section 50CSection 56(2)(x)Section 68

Expenses allowed as per 43B-Payment of ESIC 11 Expenses allowed as per 43B-reversal BUSINESS INCOME Capital Gain on Sale of Flat Short term capital gains on depreciable asset Sale Proceed of Ashutosh Flat Less: Transfer Fees Paid to Society Less: Brokerage Paid Net Consideration Less: Opening ... block of asset of Flat Short term capital gains Gross Total Income Deduction under Chapter VI-A Less Deduction under section 80JJAA TOTAL TAXABLE INCOME

Sabeena Silk Mills, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 31(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 1508/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Narndra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Anikesh Banerjeesabeena Silk Mills Vs Income-Tax Officer 31(1)(1), Apurva Industrial Estate, Mumbai, Majwana Road, Marol Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, Bandra, Mumbai-400 059 Mumbai-400 051 Pan: Aabfs3210R Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri H.N. MotiwalaFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui (SR.DR.)

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 50

order of the Assessing Officer in respect of not setting off the brought forward losses of Rs. 1,77,49,496/- against the short term capital gains under section 50 of the Act. The appellant craves a leave to add, to delete or to modify any of the main grounds ... wherein it was held, in A.Y. 2011-12, that brought forward business loss and long-term capital loss could be set off against short-term capital gains computed under section 50 on the sale of depreciable assets. Reliance was also placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High

Dipa Prakashkumar Velani, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-1(2), Bhavnagar

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

ITA 1039/AHD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Manish J Shah & Shri Rushin Patel ARSFor Respondent: Shri Prateek Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 156Section 69

erred in law and on facts of the case, in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer of taxing short term capital gain of Rs.2,08,780/- without appreciating the facts and law of the case properly. 5. The appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter the grounds ... Rajendrasinh Chudasama, the buyer of the said plot. The assessee submitted a cost of improvement of ₹2,08,780/- was incurred and declared short term capital gains of ₹58,220/- in her return. However, the Assessing Officer rejected her explanation and found her claims to be unsubstantiated. The Assessing Officer

Sangita Pramod Harlalka, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 23(3)(6), Mumbai

ITA 4167/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

Section 250Section 68Section 69C

case was selected for scrutiny and the statutory notices were duly served on the assessee. The AO noticed that the assessee has earned Short Term Capital Gains (STCG) from transfer of alleged penny stock and accordingly called on the assessee to file the necessary details. The assessee filed various details

New Laxmi Enterprises, Jogeshwari East, Mumbai vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 41(4)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 2789/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18 New Laxmi Enterprises The Income Tax Officer, 702, Laxmi Narayan Apartments, Ward 41(4)(3), Mumbai Rane Compound, Natvar Nagar Vs. Road No. 1, Jogeshwari East, Mumbai - 400060 (Pan : Aadfn2479B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Amit Kothari, Ca Revenue : Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. Ar Date Of Hearing : 05.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.08.2025 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Vide Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1073736005(1), Dated 26.02.2025 Passed Against The Assessment Order By Assessment Officer, Mum-W- (404)(93), U/S. 147/148 Of The Income-Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 21.05.2023 For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: " 1) The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Ered In Upholding The Addition Of Rs. 1,58,23,513 Without Appreciating The Fact That The Appellant Is A Builder & The Flats Sold Were Stock In Trade Which Is Chargeable To Tax Under The Head Business Income & Not Capital Gains. 2) The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Ought To Have Considered That Out Of The Addition Of Rs 1,58,23,513, Sale Value Of Flats Of Rs. 1,56,42,514

For Appellant: Shri Amit Kothari, CAFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. AR

Section 147Section 148Section 43CSection 44ASection 50C

account of variation in respect of sale consideration not declared in the return under the head income from short term capital gains. 5.1. Before the Ld. CIT(A), assessee could not make its effective representation and the appeal was dismissed ex-parte. Before us, Ld. Counsel for the assessee referred

Mohammed Saheed, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward Dausa, Dausa

ITA 659/JPR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: DR MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member), DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Poonia, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT- DR a

Appeals), NFAC has erred in law and facts in confirming the addition Rs. 1,06,22,100/ on account of Short term capital gain. Kindly delete the same. 2.1 At the outset of hearing of the appeal of the assessee for the assessment year under consideration, the Bench noticed that ... claims made are not found correct 5.5 In ground of appeal No.2, the appellant has disputed the addition made on account of short term capital gains by merely claiming that the appellant denies the 50C value of the property and that the AO has not appreciated/considered the material available

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Income Tax Office vs. Supreme Polymers Private Limited, Jaipur

In the results the appeal of the

ITA 189/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 189/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2015-16 DCIT, Central Circle-03, Jaipur बनाम Vs. Supreme Polymers Pvt. Ltd. 137-138, Industrial Area, Jhotwara, Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AACCS 5773 P अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by: Shri Gaurav Nahata, CA राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by : Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT, Sr. DR सुनवाई की ता

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Nahata, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

found that he was engaged in providing accommodation entries of share capital, share premium, share application money, unsecured loans, long term capital gains, short term capital gains etc. in lieu of cash received by him and that it had also provided one-time entry of certain amount towards share application

ITO 41(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Deepika Anil Agarwal, Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue stands

ITA 1885/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain& Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 10(38)Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 68

justified in deleting the addition made by the AO in respect of long term capital gains in the original assessment order and short term capital gains in the reassessment order. 16. In view of the above, the Ld.CIT(A) was justified in deleting the estimated addition of commission expenses. Accordingly ... Splash Media & Infra Ltd. which are listed on Bombay Stock Exchange were used for providing accommodation entries of long term capital gain/ short term capital gain. Held that: 15. Therefore, respectfully, following the decision of the coordinate bench of the Tribunal, we hold that the long term capital gain

Rajendra Kumar Mundra (HUF), Mumbai vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC), Delhi

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1000/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain& Shri Girish Agrawalrajendra Kumar Mundra Vs. Ito, Ward 24(3)(1) (Huf) Piramal Chamber C-28, Ameya Bldg, Behind Lalbaug, Mumbai – Ymca Dn Nagar Andheri (W) 400012. 400053. Pan/Gir No.Aadh6828J (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 147Section 148Section 2Section 263Section 68Section 69A

respect of identical facts of sale of shares of Yamini Investment Company Limited, the income tax department had accepted the claim of short term capital gains disclosed by him to be genuine in the reopened assessment proceedings under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act dated ... respect of identical facts of sale of shares of Yamini Investment Company Limited, the income tax department had accepted the claim of short term capital gains disclosed by him to be genuine in the reopened assessment proceedings under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act dated

Ultra Modern Exports Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 27(1), New Delhi

ITA 527/DEL/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

filed by the assessee company on 30-9-2011 declaring loss of Rs 11,74,50,000/- and also had shown income from short term capital gains amounting to Rs 1,39,060/-. This return was duly processed under section ... income for the relevant assessment year i.e. 2011-12 on 30.09.2011 declaring loss of Rs.11,74,50,000/- and also shown income from short term capital gain amounting to Rs.1,39,055/-. The return of income in the case was processed u/s 143(1) on 30.01.2012 on total income

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3(3), Mumbai vs. Phulchand Exports Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 3103/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Shankarlal Jain & Shri Satish KumarFor Respondent: Shri R.A Dhyani, (CIT-DR)

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 36(1)(iii)

Rs.21,97,16,811/- on account of sale of office premises during the year and the same had been offered to tax as Short Term Capital Gain after setting off of capital gain of Rs.20,43,22,818/- against current year business loss of Rs.18,01,56,760/- and brought ... circumstances of the case and law, the ITAT was justified in allowing set-off of brought forward business loss against deemed short-term capital gains arising from the sale of building and plant and machinery. The ITAT, in the said case, had allowed the appeal of the respondent-assessee

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 3(3), Mumbai vs. Phulchand Exports Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 3102/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Shankarlal Jain & Shri Satish KumarFor Respondent: Shri R.A Dhyani, (CIT-DR)

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 36(1)(iii)

Phulchand Exports Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 3(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 2415/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Shri Shankarlal Jain & Shri Satish Kumar

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 36(1)(iii)