← All Phrases

“long-term capital asset”

Chapter I - PreliminarySection 2 - DefinitionsSection 2(29AA)272 judgments

ITO WARD-53(3), NEW DELHI vs. ANJU MADHAN, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 9321/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

Section 53ASection 54

case of an assessee being an individual or a Hindu undivided family, the capital gain arises from the transfer of a long-term capital asset, being buildings or lands appurtenant thereto, and being a residential house, the income of which is chargeable under the head 'Income from house property (hereafter

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2 1 1, AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. BHARAT LAKHAJI NANDWANA, AHMEDABAD

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

ITA 1366/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. Adv. & Ms. UktiFor Respondent: Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. Adv. & Ms. Ukti
Section 49Section 54Section 54E

relating to exemption under section 54 of the Act, the CIT(A) held that once the asset is treated as a long-term capital asset being a residential property, the assessee would be eligible to claim exemption under section 54 of the Act subject to fulfillment of the prescribed conditions ... owner first held the asset. 21. Respectfully following the aforesaid judicial precedents, we hold that the property sold by the assessee constituted a long-term capital asset and therefore the capital gain arising from its transfer was rightly treated as long-term capital gain by the learned CIT(A). Accordingly

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. VIJAY KUMAR, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1335/DEL/2025[2021]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2026

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M. Balaganeshdcit, Vs. Vijay Kumar, New Delhi A-3/195, West Delhi, Janakpuri, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aagpk0642Q

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 54Section 54F

year and deduction under section 54F of the Act is available only for reinvestment made in residential house out of transfer of long-term capital asset other than a residential house. The assessee was accordingly show-caused by the Learned AO to comply with the eligibility conditions prescribed under section

SHASHANK MERCHANT,ANDHERI WEST, MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, CIRCLE 26(1), MUMBAI

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

ITA 7525/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Piyush Chhajed, C.A. & Shri Veetrag Chhajed – CA
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 54Section 54F

date of registration ?" 2. Under section 54F in the case of an assessee if any capital gain arises from the transfer of any long-term capital asset, not being a residential house and the assessee has, within a period of 5 Shashank Merchant one year before or two years after

RAJESH SALUJA,MUMBAI vs. OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI

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

ITA 7177/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2026AY 2017-18
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 54F

case of an\nassessee being an individual or a Hindu undivided family, the capital gain arises from the\ntransfer of any long-term capital asset, not being a residential house (hereafter in this\nsection referred to as the original asset), and the assessee has, within a period of one year

MRS. JEANETTE DSOUZA LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE OF LATE SHRI. VINOD DSOUZA),MANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), MANGALORE

In the result, with above direction to the learned assessing officer, the ground No

ITA 2348/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2016-17 Mrs. Jeanette Dsouza, Lr Of Late Shri Vinod Dsouza, Flat No. San F 10, The Income Tax Officer, Holy Family Apartments, Ward – 1(1), Vs. Lalbagh, Mangalore, Mangalore. Karnataka – 575 003. Pan: Adhpd4076H Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Prasanna Shenoy, CA
Section 139Section 142Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 159Section 55

even otherwise on the marriage the property was acquired in 1994 which was held for almost 22 years and therefore same is a long-term capital asset assessee should have been granted the benefit of indexation by substituting the actual cost with the fair market value as on 1 April

AMARJIT SINGH MARWAHA ,SHIMLA vs. ITO, NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1379/CHANDI/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadavआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1379/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Shri Amarjit Singh Marwaha, The Ito, Cottage No.1, Sadhora, Vs Ward-1, Mashobra, Baldeyan, Shimla. Shimla. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aeepm0161N अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Vishal Mohan Sr.Advocate, With Shri Abhinav Bijwaria, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. Cit Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 21.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.01.2026

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Mohan Sr.Advocate, with Shri Abhinav Bijwaria, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT Sr.DR
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 45Section 54Section 54F

case of an assessee being an individual or a Hindu undivided family, the capital gain arises from the transfer of any long-term capital asset, not being a residential house (hereafter in this section referred to as the original asset), and the assessee has, within a period of one year

RAJASEKHAR NAIDU GALLA,TIRUPATI vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1(1), TIRUPATHI

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

ITA 917/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

support of the date of the purchase of the property, it cannot be ascertained that, the property sold by the assessee was long-term capital asset or not. Since the assessee has failed to furnish documentary evidence in support of his claim of indexed cost of acquisition, the A.O. ought

DCIT, CENTRAL CIR-2(4), CHENNAI vs. D R BALAKRISHNA RAJA, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 94/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:3342 To 3344/Chny/2018 "नधा%रण वष% / Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2013-14 Shri. D. R. Balakrishna Raja, Acit, 9/16, Venkatesan Street, Vs. Central Circle -3(3), T.Nagar, Chennai. Chennai – 600 017. [Pan:Agwpd-2354-E] (()यथ'/Respondent) (अपीलाथ'/Appellant) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:91 To 94/Chny/2019 "नधा%रण वष% / Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2014-15 Dcit, Shri D. R. Balakrishna Raja, Central Circle -2(4), Vs. 9/16, Venkatesan Street, Chennai. T.Nagar, Chennai – 600 017. [Pan:Agwpd-2354-E] (अपीलाथ'/Appellant) (()यथ'/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. K.G.Raghunath, Advocate Department By : Shri. A R V Sreenivasan, Cit. सुनवाई क5 तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 27.10.2025 घोषणा क5 तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 19.01.2026 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench:

For Appellant: Shri. K.G.Raghunath, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. A R V Sreenivasan, CIT
Section 144Section 153ASection 56Section 68

received on sale of agricultural land was rejected. 24. The assessee made alternative submission and contended that interest in the trust was long-term capital asset existing since 2001. This interest in trust was self-generated and had no cost of acquisition and therefore, capital gains

DCIT, CENTRAL CIR-2(4), CHENNAI vs. D R BALAKRISHNA RAJA, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 93/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:3342 To 3344/Chny/2018 "नधा%रण वष% / Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2013-14 Shri. D. R. Balakrishna Raja, Acit, 9/16, Venkatesan Street, Vs. Central Circle -3(3), T.Nagar, Chennai. Chennai – 600 017. [Pan:Agwpd-2354-E] (()यथ'/Respondent) (अपीलाथ'/Appellant) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:91 To 94/Chny/2019 "नधा%रण वष% / Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2014-15 Dcit, Shri D. R. Balakrishna Raja, Central Circle -2(4), Vs. 9/16, Venkatesan Street, Chennai. T.Nagar, Chennai – 600 017. [Pan:Agwpd-2354-E] (अपीलाथ'/Appellant) (()यथ'/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. K.G.Raghunath, Advocate Department By : Shri. A R V Sreenivasan, Cit. सुनवाई क5 तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 27.10.2025 घोषणा क5 तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 19.01.2026 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench:

For Appellant: Shri. K.G.Raghunath, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. A R V Sreenivasan, CIT
Section 144Section 153ASection 56Section 68

received on sale of agricultural land was rejected. 24. The assessee made alternative submission and contended that interest in the trust was long-term capital asset existing since 2001. This interest in trust was self-generated and had no cost of acquisition and therefore, capital gains

DCIT, CENTRAL CIR-2(4), CHENNAI vs. D R BALAKRISHNA RAJA, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 92/CHNY/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:3342 To 3344/Chny/2018 "नधा%रण वष% / Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2013-14 Shri. D. R. Balakrishna Raja, Acit, 9/16, Venkatesan Street, Vs. Central Circle -3(3), T.Nagar, Chennai. Chennai – 600 017. [Pan:Agwpd-2354-E] (()यथ'/Respondent) (अपीलाथ'/Appellant) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:91 To 94/Chny/2019 "नधा%रण वष% / Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2014-15 Dcit, Shri D. R. Balakrishna Raja, Central Circle -2(4), Vs. 9/16, Venkatesan Street, Chennai. T.Nagar, Chennai – 600 017. [Pan:Agwpd-2354-E] (अपीलाथ'/Appellant) (()यथ'/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. K.G.Raghunath, Advocate Department By : Shri. A R V Sreenivasan, Cit. सुनवाई क5 तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 27.10.2025 घोषणा क5 तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 19.01.2026 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench:

For Appellant: Shri. K.G.Raghunath, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. A R V Sreenivasan, CIT
Section 144Section 153ASection 56Section 68

received on sale of agricultural land was rejected. 24. The assessee made alternative submission and contended that interest in the trust was long-term capital asset existing since 2001. This interest in trust was self-generated and had no cost of acquisition and therefore, capital gains

DCIT, CENTRAL CIR-2(4), CHENNAI vs. D R BALAKRISHNA RAJA, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 91/CHNY/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:3342 To 3344/Chny/2018 "नधा%रण वष% / Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2013-14 Shri. D. R. Balakrishna Raja, Acit, 9/16, Venkatesan Street, Vs. Central Circle -3(3), T.Nagar, Chennai. Chennai – 600 017. [Pan:Agwpd-2354-E] (()यथ'/Respondent) (अपीलाथ'/Appellant) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:91 To 94/Chny/2019 "नधा%रण वष% / Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2014-15 Dcit, Shri D. R. Balakrishna Raja, Central Circle -2(4), Vs. 9/16, Venkatesan Street, Chennai. T.Nagar, Chennai – 600 017. [Pan:Agwpd-2354-E] (अपीलाथ'/Appellant) (()यथ'/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. K.G.Raghunath, Advocate Department By : Shri. A R V Sreenivasan, Cit. सुनवाई क5 तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 27.10.2025 घोषणा क5 तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 19.01.2026 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench:

For Appellant: Shri. K.G.Raghunath, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. A R V Sreenivasan, CIT
Section 144Section 153ASection 56Section 68

received on sale of agricultural land was rejected. 24. The assessee made alternative submission and contended that interest in the trust was long-term capital asset existing since 2001. This interest in trust was self-generated and had no cost of acquisition and therefore, capital gains

D R BALAKRISHNA RAJA,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIR-3(3), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 3344/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:3342 To 3344/Chny/2018 "नधा%रण वष% / Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2013-14 Shri. D. R. Balakrishna Raja, Acit, 9/16, Venkatesan Street, Vs. Central Circle -3(3), T.Nagar, Chennai. Chennai – 600 017. [Pan:Agwpd-2354-E] (()यथ'/Respondent) (अपीलाथ'/Appellant) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:91 To 94/Chny/2019 "नधा%रण वष% / Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2014-15 Dcit, Shri D. R. Balakrishna Raja, Central Circle -2(4), Vs. 9/16, Venkatesan Street, Chennai. T.Nagar, Chennai – 600 017. [Pan:Agwpd-2354-E] (अपीलाथ'/Appellant) (()यथ'/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. K.G.Raghunath, Advocate Department By : Shri. A R V Sreenivasan, Cit. सुनवाई क5 तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 27.10.2025 घोषणा क5 तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 19.01.2026 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench:

For Appellant: Shri. K.G.Raghunath, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. A R V Sreenivasan, CIT
Section 144Section 153ASection 56Section 68

received on sale of agricultural land was rejected. 24. The assessee made alternative submission and contended that interest in the trust was long-term capital asset existing since 2001. This interest in trust was self-generated and had no cost of acquisition and therefore, capital gains

D R BALAKRISHNA RAJA,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIR-3(3), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 3343/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:3342 To 3344/Chny/2018 "नधा%रण वष% / Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2013-14 Shri. D. R. Balakrishna Raja, Acit, 9/16, Venkatesan Street, Vs. Central Circle -3(3), T.Nagar, Chennai. Chennai – 600 017. [Pan:Agwpd-2354-E] (()यथ'/Respondent) (अपीलाथ'/Appellant) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:91 To 94/Chny/2019 "नधा%रण वष% / Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2014-15 Dcit, Shri D. R. Balakrishna Raja, Central Circle -2(4), Vs. 9/16, Venkatesan Street, Chennai. T.Nagar, Chennai – 600 017. [Pan:Agwpd-2354-E] (अपीलाथ'/Appellant) (()यथ'/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. K.G.Raghunath, Advocate Department By : Shri. A R V Sreenivasan, Cit. सुनवाई क5 तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 27.10.2025 घोषणा क5 तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 19.01.2026 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench:

For Appellant: Shri. K.G.Raghunath, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. A R V Sreenivasan, CIT
Section 144Section 153ASection 56Section 68

received on sale of agricultural land was rejected. 24. The assessee made alternative submission and contended that interest in the trust was long-term capital asset existing since 2001. This interest in trust was self-generated and had no cost of acquisition and therefore, capital gains

D R BALAKRISHNA RAJA,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIR-3(3), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 3342/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:3342 To 3344/Chny/2018 "नधा%रण वष% / Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2013-14 Shri. D. R. Balakrishna Raja, Acit, 9/16, Venkatesan Street, Vs. Central Circle -3(3), T.Nagar, Chennai. Chennai – 600 017. [Pan:Agwpd-2354-E] (()यथ'/Respondent) (अपीलाथ'/Appellant) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:91 To 94/Chny/2019 "नधा%रण वष% / Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2014-15 Dcit, Shri D. R. Balakrishna Raja, Central Circle -2(4), Vs. 9/16, Venkatesan Street, Chennai. T.Nagar, Chennai – 600 017. [Pan:Agwpd-2354-E] (अपीलाथ'/Appellant) (()यथ'/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. K.G.Raghunath, Advocate Department By : Shri. A R V Sreenivasan, Cit. सुनवाई क5 तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 27.10.2025 घोषणा क5 तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 19.01.2026 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench:

For Appellant: Shri. K.G.Raghunath, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. A R V Sreenivasan, CIT
Section 144Section 153ASection 56Section 68

received on sale of agricultural land was rejected. 24. The assessee made alternative submission and contended that interest in the trust was long-term capital asset existing since 2001. This interest in trust was self-generated and had no cost of acquisition and therefore, capital gains

RANJIT V SRIVATSAA,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-3(2), CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1755/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Ms. G.Vardini Karthik, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 54Section 54F

case of an assessee being an individual or a Hindu undivided family, the capital gain arises from the transfer of a long-term capital asset, being buildings or lands appurtenant thereto, and being a residential house, the income of which is chargeable under the head "Income from house property" (hereafter

KANWAR SINGH TANWAR,DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 19(1), DELHI, NEW DELHI

Appeal is allowed

ITA 1519/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jan 2026AY 2021-22
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 54F

case of an assessee being an individual or a Hindu\nundivided family, the capital gain arises from the transfer of\nany long-term capital asset, not being a residential house\n(hereafter in this section referred to as the original asset), and\nthe assessee has, within a period

SAROJ GOENKA,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 30(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2129/KOL/2025[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jan 2026AY 2021-2022
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 54F

satisfied to avail the\nexemption is that, construction of house must be completed within\nthree years from the date of sale of long-term capital asset, which\nhas been met in the present case. The Ld. AR placed reliance on the\nfollowing decisions wherein it was held that, even ... case of an assessee\nbeing an individual or a Hindu undivided family, the capital gain arises from the transfer of\nany long-term capital asset, not being a residential house (hereafter in this section\nreferred to as the original asset), and the assessee has, within a period of one year

RAJANI SHIVAJI GHADGE,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD, 22(3)(6), MUMBAI

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

ITA 7020/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Rahul Chaudharyassessment Year : 2016-17 Rajani Shivaji Ghadge, Income Tax Officer, 505, Om Sumit, Ward-22(3)(6), Dr. B.A. Road, Vs. Piramal Chamber, Ganesh Gully, Lalbaug, Lalbaug, Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400012. Pan : Aofpg1701D (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : None For Revenue : Shri Annavaran Kosuri, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 08-01-2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 12-01-2026 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M :

For Appellant: NONEFor Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kosuri, Sr.DR
Section 147Section 54

date on which the building was constructed) to 17.02.2016. From the perusal of the above, the house property sold is a Long-Term Capital Asset as per the provisions of the Act. Your appellant was entitled to Rs. 10 lakhs being her share and she had received only that amount

MR VINAY NARAYAN KEDIA,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 22(3)(6), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

ITA 5289/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2025AY 2015-16
Section 10(38)Section 147Section 148Section 148BSection 151Section 68

upholding the action of the Assessing Officer in\nmaking an addition of Rs.1,26,49,760, by holding the consideration on\nsale of long-term capital assets being, shares of Solis Marketing Limited to\nbe non-genuine and thereby not allowing exemption under Section 10(38)\nof the Act.\nThe ... purchased during an earlier year\nas investments, the same being sold shall necessarily give rise to capital\ngains and the impugned shares being long-term capital asset, the capital\ngains are long-term capital gains in respect of which the Assessing Officer\nought to have allowed exemption of Section

Showing 1–20 of 272 · Page 1 of 14

...