← All Phrases

“long-term capital asset”

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

The decision most relied on for long-term capital asset is CIT v. Manjula J. Shah (355 ITR 474), cited in 113 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on long-term capital asset

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).

CIT v. Ace Builders (P) Ltd.
281 ITR 210 · 2005 · High Court
88
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
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.

CIT v. T.N. Aravinda Reddy
120 ITR 46 · 1979 · Supreme Court
54
citing judgments

The word 'purchase' in Section 54(1) and analogous sections like 54F of the Income-tax Act must be given its common, liberal meaning, including acquisition for a price, payment in kind, adjustment of debt, or other monetary consideration. A transfer of a co-owner's share for consideration qualifies as a 'purchase' for claiming capital gains exemption.

CIT v. J.R. Subramanya Bhat
165 ITR 571 · 1987 · High Court
39
citing judgments

Exemption under Section 54 of the Income-tax Act for capital gains invested in a new residential house is not denied even if the construction of the new house commenced before the sale of the original asset.

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.

Tilokchand & Sons. v. ITO
413 ITR 189 · 2019 · High Court
31
citing judgments

A residential house for the purpose of Section 54 of the Income Tax Act can include more than one or plural residential houses, prior to April 1, 2015.

CIT v. Coromandel Industries Ltd.
370 ITR 586 · 2015 · High Court
27
citing judgments

Investment in bonds for Section 54EC deduction made within six months from the date of transfer of the original asset is considered proper, even if made in different financial years.

Judgments citing long-term capital asset

Saurabh Prasannavadan Vakil, Vadodara, Gujarat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(2)(4)Vadodara(Now Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1(1)(1)), Vadodara, Gujarat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 975/AHD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 975/Ahd/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15) बनाम/ Saurabh Prasannavadan Income Tax Officer Ward Vakil 1(2)(4) (Now Deputy Vs. E 402 Nilamber Commissioner Of Income Bellissimo, Vasna Bhayli Tax Road, Vadodara 391410, Circle 1(1)(1), Vadodara Gujarat "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.: Aalpv8393C (Appellant) .. (Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri Milin Mehta & Ms. Amrin Pathan, Ar ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By Ms. Ketki Desai, Sr. Dr : Date Of Hearing 26/09/2024 15/10/2024 Date Of Pronouncement O R D E R Per Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, (In Short ‘The Cit(A)’), Dated 06.05.2024 For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2014-15. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Had Filed His Original Return Of Income For A.Y. 2014-15 On 30.07.2014 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.2,19,54,960/- & Subsequently A Revised Return With Total Income Of Rs.2,24,26,160/-. The Assessment Was Completed Under Section 143(3) Of The Income

For Appellant: Shri Milin Mehta & Ms. Amrin
Section 143(3)Section 234DSection 271(1)(c)Section 50ESection 54E

assessee was required to invest the capital gains within a period of six months from the date of transfer of the long-term capital asset and that the quantum of investment was restricted to Rs.50 Lakhs only in one financial year. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee had invested ... Lakhs in the investment of bonds as stipulated u/s.54EC of the Act was cumulative investment in respect of each transaction of transfer of long-term capital asset. She contended that the law doesn’t envisage differential treatment on the basis of date of transfer. She explained that the situation

Shri Kirankumar Rasiklal Sanghvi, Deesa vs. The Pr.CIT-4, Ahmedabad

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 179/AHD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarिनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 Shri Kirankumar Rasiklal Sanghvi, The Principal Commissioner Of 1, Paras Society, Neminathnagar Income-Tax-4, Vs. Road, Deesa, Gujarat-385535 Ahmedabad Pan : Afops 0131 D अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" "" "" यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" Assessee By : Shri Manish J. Shah & Shri Rushin Patel, Ars Revenue By : Shri Durga Dutt, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12.09.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 24.09.2024 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Annapurna Gupta: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax-4, Ahmedabad [Herein- After Referred To As “Pcit”] Dated 03.03.2020, In Exercise Of His Revisionary Powers Under Section 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”], For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16. 2. The Registry Has Noted The Present Appeal To Be Barred By Limitation By 1355 Days. The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Explained That There Was, In Fact, No Delay In Filing The Appeal Before The Tribunal For The Reason That The Assessee Had Inadvertently Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Ld. Pcit Before The Surat Bench Of The Itat Which, When The Appeal Came Up For Hearing Before It, Passed A Judicial Order Dated 21.11.2023 Dismissing The Appeal As Withdrawn, Noting The Fact That The Correct Jurisdiction Lay With The 2 Shri Kirankumar Rasiklal Sanghvi Vs. Pcit Ay : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Manish J. Shah &For Respondent: Shri Durga Dutt, CIT-DR
Section 14Section 143(3)Section 23Section 263Section 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