← All Phrases

“period of holding”

Capital GainsSection 2(42A)Section 2(42A)366 judgments

The decision most relied on for period of holding is CIT v. Jamnadevi Agarwal (328 ITR 656), cited in 230 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on period of holding

CIT v. Jamnadevi Agarwal
328 ITR 656 · 2010 · High Court
230
citing judgments

When faced with allegations of bogus long-term capital gains from penny stocks, the Assessing Officer must discharge the onus of proving that the assessee's transactions were not genuine. The assessee can rely on the principle of preponderance of probability, and the Revenue must present substantial evidence to establish that the transactions were a colourable device or that the assessee was an entry operator.

CIT v. Manjula J. Shah
355 ITR 474 · 2013 · High Court
113
citing judgments

For capital assets acquired by gift or will, the indexed cost of acquisition under Section 48 is computed with reference to the year the previous owner first held the asset. The period of holding for determining if an asset is long-term also includes the previous owner's holding period, as per Section 2(42A).

Bhawanji Lakhamshi and Ors. v. Himatlal Jamnadas Dani and Ors.
1 SCC 388 · 1997 · Reported
64
citing judgments

A tenant holding over after the expiration of the lease term does not automatically create a new tenancy. A tenancy holding over under Section 116 of the Transfer of Property Act arises only if the lessor accepts rent after the lease period, otherwise the tenant's status is that of a tenant at sufferance.

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.

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.

PCIT v. Vembu Vaidyanathan
413 ITR 248 · 2019 · High Court
32
citing judgments

For capital gains computation, the date of allotment of a residential unit under a construction scheme is the date of acquisition, not the date of agreement or possession. This applies even if possession is delivered later, as the allotment letter confers the right to hold the property.

L.Ve. Vairavan Chettiar v. CIT
72 ITR 114 · 1969 · High Court
31
citing judgments

A business concern can still be considered to be carrying on its business even if there are long intervals of inactivity, provided it is kept alive, retains its registered office, and holds meetings. It is not necessary for a business to have work constantly to be considered in existence.

Vinod Kumar Jain v. CIT
344 ITR 501 · 2012 · High Court
31
citing judgments

The holding period of an asset, particularly a flat allotted by the DDA, commences from the date of the allotment letter, not the date of possession or subsequent sale deed registration.

Judgments citing period of holding

Vasudevan Balaji, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-7(1), Chennai

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

ITA 2249/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2249/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 Vasudevan Balaji, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 187-A, Z Block, 5Th Street, Non Corporate Ward 7(1), Anna Nagar, Chennai 600 040. Chennai. [Pan:Axmpb0416A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. T.V. Muthu Abirami, Advocate For Shri N. Vijay Kumar, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri C. Murugresan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 26.11.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 27.11.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 09.05.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. We Find That This Appeal Was Filed With A Delay Of 49 Days. The Assessee Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay Stating Reasons For The Said Delay. Upon Hearing Both The Parties & On Examination Of The 2

For Appellant: Ms. T.V. Muthu Abirami, Advocate for Shri N. Vijay Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri C. Murugresan, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)

sales of agricultural land, name and address of parties from whom/ to whom lands were purchases and sold, source of fund invested, period of holdings of land, etc. 4. The ld. AR Ms. T.V. Muthu Abirami, Advocate for Shri N. Vijay Kumar, C.A. submits that due to the circumstances beyond

Ramachandran, Chennai vs. ACIT, Non Coporate Circle-2, Chennai

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

ITA 775/CHNY/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.775 /Chny/2023 निर्ाारण वर्ा /Assessment Year: 2015-16 Ramachandran The Asst. Commissioner Of Old No.9, New No.19, Vs. Income Tax, Jumaulingam Street, Non-Corporate Circle-2 Mylapore, Chennai Chennai-600004 [Pan: Aaqhr6150N] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Y.Sridhar, F.C.A. प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुिवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 31.07.2024 घोर्णा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23.10.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M : This Appeal Is Filed Against The Order Bearing Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1053343791(1) Dated 31.05.2023 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax [Herein After “Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Center[Nfac], Delhi, For The Assessment Years 2015- 16. Through The Aforesaid Appeal The Assesse Has Challenged Order U/S 250 Dated 31.05.2023 Passed By Nfac, Delhi. :- 2 -:

For Appellant: Shri Y.Sridhar, F.C.AFor Respondent: Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 10(38)Section 250Section 263Section 68

whom the purchases were made. The said shares were reportedly dematerialized in Feb-2014 which :- 3 -: therefore does not confirms to the mandatory period of holding of 12 months. The assesse had not disclosed any sale purchase of shares in his return and only shown an exempt income of Rs.4