← 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

Rambilash Rajaram Jajoo, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-2(2)(4), Surat

ITA 552/SRT/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat10 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 552/Srt/2024 (Ay 2011-12) Rambilash Rajaram Jajoo (Physical Court Hearing) 429-432, Golden Point, Falsawadi, Ring Road, Surat City, Surat-395 002 [Pan : Aampj 0040 K] अपीलार्थी/Appellant Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward- 2(2)(4), Aaykar Bhawan, Majura Gate, Opp. New Civil Hospital, Surat-395 001 प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 882/Srt/2024 (Ay 2011-12) Sunita Jajoo 429-432, Golden Point, Near Bsnl Office, Falsawadi, Ring Road, Surat-395 002 [Pan: Aampj 0040 K] बनाम Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward- 2(2)(4), Aaykar Bhawan, Majura Gate, Opp. New Civil Hospital, Surat-395 001 अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से /Assessee By Ms. Richa Toshniwal. Ca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By Shri Minal Kamble, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 23.01.2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 10.02.2025 Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh: 1. These Two Appeals By Separate Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Addl/Jcit(A)-7, Kolkata/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [For Short To As "Nfac/Ld.Cit(A)] Dated 21.03.2024 & 21.04.2023 For Same

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)Section 68Section 69C

appreciate the controversy and the issue for adjudication. The assessee has submitted before us, chart showing purchases and sale of shares and the period of holding and numbers of shares, appeal- wise, which are reproduced below: (i) In respect of ITA No. 183/SRT/2021 for AY.2011-12, the assessee has submitted

DCIT, Central Circle-1(1), Ahmedabad vs. Smt. Denisha Rajendra Keshwani, Ahmedabad

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 39/AHD/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.39/Ahd/2021 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2015-16 The Dcit Smt. Denisha Rajendra बनाम/ Central Circle-1(1) Keshwani V/S. Ahmedabad – 380 009 44, Asopalav Bungalows Nr.Muktidham Temple Thaltej, Ahmedabad – 380 054 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Ahzpk 0889 K (अपीलाथ$/ Appellant) (%& यथ$/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mehul K. Patel, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rignesh Das, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 30/01/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/02/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Ahmedabad [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”], Dated 22.01.2021, For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16, Wherein The Cit(A) Has Deleted The Addition Of Rs.1,17,78,534/- Made Under Section 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”] By The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle – 1(1), Dcit Vs. Smt. Denisha Rajendra Keshwani Asst. Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Mehul K. Patel, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, Sr.DR
Section 127Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

outset, we find that the CIT(A) has examined the assessee’s transactions in detail, including the mode of purchase, sources of funds, period of holding, and sale through a recognized stock exchange with payment of STT. The Revenue has not brought any conclusive evidence to rebut these findings

Gurdeep Singh Matreja, Pajifond, Margao, Goa vs. Income Tax Officer, Margao

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

ITA 84/PAN/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji05 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G D Padmahshalii T A. Nos. 84/Pan/2024 (A.Y. 2012-13 ) Gurdeep Singh Matreja, Vs Ito-Ward-3 Shop.No,4,Mathurashrav Margoa, . Pajifond, Margoa-403601, Goa. Goa. . Pan .No. Agqpm5987N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee By None(Letter 3-02-25) Revenue By Mr.Narendra Reddy.Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 04.02.2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 05.02.2025 Order Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Appeal Is Filed By The Assesse Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Delhi / Cit(A) Passed U/Sec 144 R.W.S147 & U/Sec 250 Of The Act. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That, The Assessee Is Engaged In The Business. The Assessing Officer (Ao) Based On The Information From Itba Data, Found That The Assesse Has Sold Property For Rs49 Lakhs & Has Claimed The Exemption U/Sec54F(1) Of The Act & The Assessing Officer Has Reason To Believe That The Income Has Escaped Assessment & Issued Notice U/Sec148 Of The Act. Further The Assesse Has Filed The Copy Of Purchase Deed & Sale

Section 144

filed the copy of purchase deed and sale 2 ITA. No. 84/PAN/2023 Gurdeep Singh Matreja.. deed. Whereas the A.O found that the period of holding of the assest sold is less than 36 months and the assessee is not eligible for claim of exemption u/sec54F