← 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

Piyush R.Shah, Mumbai vs. PCIT-8, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3207/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhpiyush R Shah Vs. Pcit-8 1301, Piroj Palace, 152, Room No. 610, 6 Th Floor, L.N. Road, Matunga Aaykarbhavan, Maharashtra – 400014 M.K. Road Maharashtra – 400020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aabps3962N Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Pradipkapasi Respondent By : K.C. Selvamani Date Of Hearing 25.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31.05.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): The Present Appeal Filed By The Assesse Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Nfac, Delhi Dated 31.03.2022 For A.Y. 2015-16. The Assesse Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “Ground No. 1: Invalid Order U/S. 263 (A) The Ld. Cit-8, Mumbai Erred In Law & On Facts In Passing An Order U/S. 263 For Revising The Assessment Order Passed U/S. 143(3) Dt. 20.12.2017. (B) Your Appellant Strongly Submits That Assessment Order U/S. 143(3) Dt. 20.12.2017 Was Passed After Adequate Enquiry & Consideration Of All Facts & In The Law On The Subject, Which Order Was Neither Erroneous Nor Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Revenue. (C) Your Appellant Pleads That The Said Order Passed U/S. 263 By The Ld. Cit- 8, Mumbai Be Quashed & Set Aside As It Is Bad In Law. Ground No. 2: Order U/S. 263 Without Juridiction

For Appellant: PradipKapasiFor Respondent: K.C. Selvamani
Section 10Section 143(3)Section 154Section 263Section 68

made on 20.12.2017 assessing the total income at Rs.5,83,76,716/- after making addition on account of disallowance of bogus long term capital gain earned on penny stock of the shares u/s 68 of the Act. Subsequently, the ld. Pr.CIT on perusal of the assessment record noticed that ... assessment year 2012-13 and the cost of acquisition of shares was not the issue of addition and it was only bogus long term capital gain of Rs.5,18,17,987/-, which was treated as bogus, therefore, we find that decision of the ld. CIT(A) in treating the cost