← All Phrases

“bogus long term capital gain”

Cash Credits & Unexplained ItemsSection 68Section 68695 judgments

The decision most relied on for bogus long term capital gain is PCIT v. Swati Bajaj (139 Taxmann.com 352), cited in 443 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on bogus long term capital gain

PCIT v. Swati Bajaj
139 Taxmann.com 352 · 2022 · High Court
443
citing judgments

Tax authorities are entitled to examine surrounding circumstances and apply the test of human probabilities to determine the genuineness of long-term capital gains arising from the sale of manipulated penny stock, even if prima facie documents appear to support the transaction.

CIT v. Shyam R. Pawar
54 Taxmann.com 108 · 2015 · High Court
279
citing judgments

Transactions involving the purchase and sale of shares cannot be considered bogus where the assessee provides documentary evidence, unless the revenue brings substantial evidence on record to reject such proof. This principle is consistently applied in cases concerning claims of bogus long-term capital gains arising from penny stock transactions.

Sanjay Bimalchand Jain v. PCIT-1, Nagpur
89 Taxmann.com 196 · 2018 · High Court
251
citing judgments

The exemption for long-term capital gains on share transactions is unavailable if the assessee fails to discharge the onus of proving the genuineness of gains arising from dubious share transactions designed to convert unaccounted income into tax-exempt capital gains. Courts will uphold an assessment based on the Revenue's evidence of price rigging or penny stock manipulation if the assessee cannot provide cogent evidence for the abnormal rise in share value.

PCIT v. Krishna Devi
126 Taxmann.com 80 · 2021 · High Court
249
citing judgments

The genuineness of share transactions, particularly those generating long-term capital gains, cannot be rejected solely based on general investigation reports, third-party statements, or a mere increase in share price, when the assessee provides comprehensive documentary evidence, without the Revenue bringing substantial evidence to the contrary.

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.

Pr.CIT v. Lata Jain
384 ITR 543 · 2016 · High Court
174
citing judgments

In a search assessment under Section 153A, no additions can be made for assessment years where assessments have already been concluded, unless incriminating material related to undisclosed income for those years is found during the search operation.

ITO, 19(3) (4) Mumbai v. Shamim M Bharwani
69 Taxmann.com 65 · 2016 · Reported
142
citing judgments

Long Term Capital Gains (LTCG) from penny stock transactions are liable to be treated as bogus and added back under Section 68 as unexplained cash credits, especially when evidence suggests the involvement of entry operators providing accommodation entries.

Mukesh R.Marolia v. Addl. CIT
6 SOT 247 · 2006 · ITAT
139
citing judgments

The department must substantiate its allegations of a bogus long term capital gain scheme; if not substantiated, the addition made by the Assessing Officer for purported bogus LTCG derived from the purchase/sale of shares cannot be sustained. An assessee's claim for long term capital gains exemption on share transactions should be allowed where documentation supports the transactions.

Judgments citing bogus long term capital gain

ITO Ward - 28(4), New Delhi vs. Renu Gupta, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5155/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआअसं.5155/िद"ी/2019 (िन.व. 2015-16) Income Tax Officer, Ward 28(4), R. No. 1211, E-2 Block, 12Th Floor, ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Civic Center, Jln Marg, Delhi 110002 बनाम Vs. Renu Gupta, R/O. B-393, New Friends Colony, New Delhi 110025 ....."ितवादी/Respondent Pan: Afupg-6910-N Assessee By : Shri Sanjeev Kapoor, Chartered Accountant Department By : Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 19.02.2025 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : : 19.05.2025 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Revenueis Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, New Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Cit(A)') Dated 05.03.2019, For Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Revenue In Appeal Has Assailed The Order Of Cit(A) In Deleting Addition Of Rs.1,30,83,424/-Made By Assessing Officer (Ao) Disallowing Assessee’S Claim Of Exemption Of Long Term Capital Gains (Ltcg) U/S. 10(38) Of The Income Tax Act,1961(Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’).

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev Kapoor, Chartered AccountantFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)

assessment order and prayed for reversing findings of the CIT(A). The ld. DR submits that the assessee has indulged in obtaining bogus Long Term Capital Gain on sale of shares, which is a declared penny stocks. The AO in detail has explained modus operandiof operators, intermediaries and beneficiaries involved ... deleted the entire addition. The Tribunal has considered almost similar circumstances and do not find any allegation against the assessee for earning bogus long term capital gains under section 10(38) of the I.T. Act, 1961. The initial onus upon the assessee to prove source of the money credited

Rajendra, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle 19(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 759/MUM/2025[AACPR4430M]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2025

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara(Physical Hearing) बनाम Rajendra, Dcit Circle 19(3), Mumbai 317, Prasad Chamber, Opera House, Vs Piramal Chambers, Charni Road, Mumbai – 400004. Lalbaug, Parel, Pan No. Aacpr 4430 M Mumbai-400012. अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्रत्यर्थी /Respondent ननर्ाारितीकीओिसे /Assessee By Ms. Ruby Srivastava & Shri Bharat Kumar Ar’S िाजस्वकीओिसे /Revenue By Shri Anil Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Institution Of Appeal 03.02.2025 27.02.2025 सुनवाईकीतािीख/Date Of Hearing उद्घोषणाकीतािीख/Date Of 30.04.2025 Pronouncement Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act

Section 132(4)Section 143(1)Section 148Section 254(1)Section 68Section 69C

search action it was revealed that said group was indulging in providing accommodation entry in the form of bogus long term capital gain /short term capital loss or business loss to various beneficiaries. The said group was involved in trade of scripts of shares of seven companies. The name ... proved that Naresh Jain and his group was providing accommodation entry in the form of 9 Rajendra (AY 2012-13) bogus long term capital gain /short term capital loss or business loss to various beneficiaries. The said group was involved in trade of scripts of shares of seven companies