← 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

M/S Dharani Developers Private Limited, Alwarpet, Chennai vs. ACIT, Company Circle 1(4), Nungambakkam Chennai

ITA 401/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.397, 398, 399, 400 & 401/Chny/2023 Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2016-17 & 2017-18 M/S. Dharani Developers Private Vs. The Asst/Deputy Commissioner Of Limited, No. 1, Venus Colony Ii Street, Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), Alwarpet, Chennai 600 018. 121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, [Pan:Aabcd6222D] Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri K. Ramakrishnan, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 09.01.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18.01.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against Separate Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi, All Dated 31.01.2023 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2008-09, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2016-17 & 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is Engaged In The Business Of Property Development & Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Years Under Appeal. The First Ground Raised By The Assessee

For Appellant: Shri K. Ramakrishnan, CAFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT

started any income arising out of these should only be offered under the head "income from business". It was further observed that the period of holding of the land is not relevant since ultimately the lands were used only for construction purposes, which is the assessee's business. Thus

M/S Dharani Developers Private Limited, Alwarpet, Chennai vs. ACIT, Company Circle 1(4), Nungambakkam Chennai

ITA 400/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Jan 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.397, 398, 399, 400 & 401/Chny/2023 Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2016-17 & 2017-18 M/S. Dharani Developers Private Vs. The Asst/Deputy Commissioner Of Limited, No. 1, Venus Colony Ii Street, Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), Alwarpet, Chennai 600 018. 121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, [Pan:Aabcd6222D] Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri K. Ramakrishnan, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 09.01.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18.01.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against Separate Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi, All Dated 31.01.2023 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2008-09, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2016-17 & 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is Engaged In The Business Of Property Development & Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Years Under Appeal. The First Ground Raised By The Assessee

For Appellant: Shri K. Ramakrishnan, CAFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT

started any income arising out of these should only be offered under the head "income from business". It was further observed that the period of holding of the land is not relevant since ultimately the lands were used only for construction purposes, which is the assessee's business. Thus

M/S Dharani Developers Private Limited, Alwarpet, Chennai vs. ACIT, Company Circle 1(4), Nungambakkam Chennai

ITA 399/CHNY/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Jan 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.397, 398, 399, 400 & 401/Chny/2023 Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2016-17 & 2017-18 M/S. Dharani Developers Private Vs. The Asst/Deputy Commissioner Of Limited, No. 1, Venus Colony Ii Street, Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), Alwarpet, Chennai 600 018. 121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, [Pan:Aabcd6222D] Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri K. Ramakrishnan, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 09.01.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18.01.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against Separate Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi, All Dated 31.01.2023 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2008-09, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2016-17 & 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is Engaged In The Business Of Property Development & Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Years Under Appeal. The First Ground Raised By The Assessee

For Appellant: Shri K. Ramakrishnan, CAFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT

started any income arising out of these should only be offered under the head "income from business". It was further observed that the period of holding of the land is not relevant since ultimately the lands were used only for construction purposes, which is the assessee's business. Thus

M/S Dharani Developers Private Limited, Alwarpet, Chennai vs. ACIT, Company Circle 1(4), Nungambakkam Chennai

ITA 398/CHNY/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Jan 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.397, 398, 399, 400 & 401/Chny/2023 Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2016-17 & 2017-18 M/S. Dharani Developers Private Vs. The Asst/Deputy Commissioner Of Limited, No. 1, Venus Colony Ii Street, Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), Alwarpet, Chennai 600 018. 121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, [Pan:Aabcd6222D] Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri K. Ramakrishnan, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 09.01.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18.01.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against Separate Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi, All Dated 31.01.2023 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2008-09, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2016-17 & 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is Engaged In The Business Of Property Development & Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Years Under Appeal. The First Ground Raised By The Assessee

For Appellant: Shri K. Ramakrishnan, CAFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT

started any income arising out of these should only be offered under the head "income from business". It was further observed that the period of holding of the land is not relevant since ultimately the lands were used only for construction purposes, which is the assessee's business. Thus

M/S Dharani Developers Private Limited, Alwarpet, Chennai vs. ACIT, Company Circle 1(4), Nungambakkam Chennai

ITA 397/CHNY/2023[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Jan 2024AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.397, 398, 399, 400 & 401/Chny/2023 Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2016-17 & 2017-18 M/S. Dharani Developers Private Vs. The Asst/Deputy Commissioner Of Limited, No. 1, Venus Colony Ii Street, Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), Alwarpet, Chennai 600 018. 121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, [Pan:Aabcd6222D] Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri K. Ramakrishnan, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 09.01.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18.01.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against Separate Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi, All Dated 31.01.2023 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2008-09, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2016-17 & 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is Engaged In The Business Of Property Development & Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Years Under Appeal. The First Ground Raised By The Assessee

For Appellant: Shri K. Ramakrishnan, CAFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT

started any income arising out of these should only be offered under the head "income from business". It was further observed that the period of holding of the land is not relevant since ultimately the lands were used only for construction purposes, which is the assessee's business. Thus

Naz Shazia, Moradabad vs. ITO-17(2)(4), Mumbai

ITA 2170/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Dec 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2170/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Naz Shazia बिधम/ The Income Tax Officer- Anwar House, Ground 17(2)(4) Vs. Floor, Pandit Nagla Mini 1St Floor, Ayakar Bhavan, Bye Pass Road, Pandit M. K. Road, Mumbai- Nagla, Moradabad, Uttar 400020. Pradesh-244001. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Bbwps2176R (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Fenil Bhatt Revenue By: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 05/12/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/12/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/(Nfac), Delhi Dated 03.05.2023 For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac Confirming The Addition Of Rs.1,94,05,886/- U/S 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) Being The Amount Of Long Term Capital Gain (Ltcg) On Transfer Of Shares In M/S. Esteem Bio Organic Food Processing Ltd. (Hereinafter “M/S. Esteem Bio”) Claimed As Exempt Income U/S 10(38) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Fenil BhattFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha (Sr
Section 10(38)Section 2Section 68

relevant assessment year under appeal. The dates of purchase/allotment of equity shares, mode of payment of purchase being by account payee cheques only, period of holding, dates of sales of equity shares through 6 A.Y. 2015-16 Naz Shazia the online screen based trading on the BOLT platform of stock

The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Akola Circle, Akola vs. Dsd Progresive Associate, Buldhana

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is Allowed

ITA 387/NAG/2019[206-17]Status: FixedITAT Nagpur13 Oct 2023

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.387/Nag/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 The Assistant Dsd Progressive Associate, Commissioner Of V 11, Dsd Mall, Near Tahsil Income Tax, S Office, Chaitanya Wadi, Akola Circle, Akola – Buldhana – 443001. 444001. Pan: Aaifp 3358 A Appellant / Revenue Respondent / Assessee Assessee By Shri Mukesh Agrawal – Ca Revenue By Shri Kailash Kanojiya – Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 30/08/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 13/10/2023 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue I.E. Acit, Akola Circle Against The Order Of Ld.Cit(A)-1, Nagpur Dated 09.09.2019 For A.Y. 2016-17. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : 1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit (Appeals), Nagpur Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 8,33,55,350/- Made To The Returned Income As Business Income Arising Out Of Sale Of Agriculture Land Held As Stock In Trade In The Books Of Account By The Assessee. Dsc Progressive Associate [R]

Section 131

changing the head of asset as Fixed Assets from stock in trade. Even otherwise the same was never a capital asset during its period of holding or even at the time of sale of the same.” 5. We are of the opinion that the ld.CIT(A) has erred in accepting