JCIT v. Montgomery Emerging Marketing Funds,\n

ISHARES CORE MSCI TOTAL INTERNATIONAL STOCK ETF (AS A SUCCESSOR TO ISHARE CORE TAOTAL INTERNATIONAL STOCK MAURITIUS COMPANY ),MUMBAI vs. DY CIT (INT. TAX)-2(2)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhailishares Core Msci Emerging Markets Etf (As A Successor To Ishares Core Emerging Markets Mauritius Company) C/O Ernst & Young Llp, 17Th Floor, The Ruby, 29, Senapati Bapat Marg, ............... Appellant Dadar (West), Mumbai - 400028 Pan : Aafci3337N V/S Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax (International Tax) - 2(2)(2) Room No.606, 6Th Floor, Kautilya Bhavan, ……………… Respondent C-41 To C-43, G-Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai – 400051 Ishares Msci All Country Asia Ex Japan Etf C/O Ernst & Young Llp, 17Th Floor, The Ruby, 29, Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar (West), Mumbai - 400028 Pan : Aabti7439L ............... Appellant

…Now coming to the contention whether each transaction can be considered as a separate source of income. 6.5. The Ld.AR placed reliance on the following observations by Hon’ble Mumbai Special Bench in case of Montgomery Emerging Market Fund reported in (2006) 100 ITD 217 in support of the above argument. Hon’ble Special bench observed the distinction between 'source of income' and 'head of income' and that there can be multiple source of income under the same head of income. Hon’ble Special Bench also observed that, what is taxed by the Act is not different source of income, independently and that income from dif…

ISHARES CORE MSCI EMERGING MARKETS ETF (AS A SUCCESSOR TO ISHARES CORE EMERGING MARKETS MAURITIUS COMPANY ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (TP) 2(2)(2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhailishares Core Msci Emerging Markets Etf (As A Successor To Ishares Core Emerging Markets Mauritius Company) C/O Ernst & Young Llp, 17Th Floor, The Ruby, 29, Senapati Bapat Marg, ............... Appellant Dadar (West), Mumbai - 400028 Pan : Aafci3337N V/S Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax (International Tax) - 2(2)(2) Room No.606, 6Th Floor, Kautilya Bhavan, ……………… Respondent C-41 To C-43, G-Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai – 400051 Ishares Msci All Country Asia Ex Japan Etf C/O Ernst & Young Llp, 17Th Floor, The Ruby, 29, Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar (West), Mumbai - 400028 Pan : Aabti7439L ............... Appellant

…Now coming to the contention whether each transaction can be considered as a separate source of income. 6.5. The Ld.AR placed reliance on the following observations by Hon’ble Mumbai Special Bench in case of Montgomery Emerging Market Fund reported in (2006) 100 ITD 217 in support of the above argument. Hon’ble Special bench observed the distinction between 'source of income' and 'head of income' and that there can be multiple source of income under the same head of income. Hon’ble Special Bench also observed that, what is taxed by the Act is not different source of income, independently and that income from dif…

ATYANT CAPITAL INDIA FUND-I,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL) TAX CIRCLE 1(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

…y forward\nof long-term capital loss by referring to the provisions of the Act is not\npermissible as per law, the learned AR by referring to the decision of a Special\nBench of the Tribunal in JCIT vs. Montgomery Emerging Marketing Funds,\nreported in (2006) 100 ITD 217 (Mumbai) (SB), submitted that different\ntransactions will result in different source of income and therefore each\ntransaction resulting in short-term capital gains or loss and long-term capital\ngains or loss should be viewed separately and thus, the assessee has a choice\nto seek the benefit of the Act and Treaty for each source of transaction…

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX IT 3.1.2, KAUTILYA BHAWAN, MUMBAI vs. KUWAIT INVESTMENT AUTHORITY, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2020-21

…CG (which is not subjected to STT) first before setting-off the same against the STCG (which is subject to STT). In this regard, assessee referred to the decision of Hon'ble Special Bench of ITAT Mumbai in the case of Montomery Emerging Markets Company [2006] 100 ITD 217 (Mum) wherein it was held that Section 70(2) of the Act does not prescribe any order in which specific short-term capital loss can be set-off against specific short-term capital gains and in absence of such description, the interpretation of provision in favour of taxpayer should be adopted. Also, relied in the case of First State Investment (Hon…

ISHANA CAPITAL MASTER FUND ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-2(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Smt. Renu Jauhri ()

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SMT. RENU JAUHRI (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) I.T.A. No. 2029/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2022-23 Ishana Capital Master Vs. Deputy Commissioner Fund of Income Tax C/o Ernst & Young (International LLP, 17th Floor, The Taxation)- 2(2)(1) Ruby, 29, Senapati Room No. 606, 6th Floor, Bapat Marg, Dadar Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 (West), to C-43, G Block, Mumbai-400028 Bandra Kurla Complex, PAN:AAECI5828B Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051 (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri Madhur Agrawal Respondent by Shri Krishna Kumar, SR. D.R…

ISHARES MSCI ALL COUNTRY ASIA EX JAPAN ETF(AS A SUCCESSOR TO ISHARES MSCI ALL COUNTRY ASIA EX JAPAN MAURITIUS CO),MUMBAI vs. DCIT (INT)-2(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical\npurposes

…oming to the contention whether each transaction can be considered as\na separate source of income.\n6. 5. The Ld.AR placed reliance on the following observations by Hon'ble\nMumbai Special Bench in case of Montgomery Emerging Market Fund reported\nin (2006) 100 ITD 217 in support of the above argument. Hon'ble Special\nbench observed the distinction between 'source of income' and 'head of\nincome' and that there can be multiple source of income under the same head\nof income. Hon'ble Special Bench also observed that, what is taxed by the\nAct is not different source of income, independently and that income from…

ISHARES CORE MSCI EM IMI UCITS ETF,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (INT)-2(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical\npurposes

…oming to the contention whether each transaction can be considered as\na separate source of income.\n6. 5. The Ld.AR placed reliance on the following observations by Hon'ble\nMumbai Special Bench in case of Montgomery Emerging Market Fund reported\nin (2006) 100 ITD 217 in support of the above argument. Hon'ble Special\nbench observed the distinction between 'source of income' and 'head of\nincome' and that there can be multiple source of income under the same head\nof income. Hon'ble Special Bench also observed that, what is taxed by the\nAct is not different source of income, independently and that income from…

ISHARES MSCI EMERGING MARKETS ETF (AS A SUCCESSOR TO ISHARES EMERGING MARKETS INDEX MAURITIUS CO ),MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-2(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical\npurposes

…oming to the contention whether each transaction can be considered as\na separate source of income.\n6. 5. The Ld.AR placed reliance on the following observations by Hon'ble\nMumbai Special Bench in case of Montgomery Emerging Market Fund reported\nin (2006) 100 ITD 217 in support of the above argument. Hon'ble Special\nbench observed the distinction between 'source of income' and 'head of\nincome' and that there can be multiple source of income under the same head\nof income. Hon'ble Special Bench also observed that, what is taxed by the\nAct is not different source of income, independently and that income from…

ISHARES INDIA 50 ETF (AS A SUCCESSOR TO ISHARES INDIA MAURITIUS CO ),MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-2(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical\npurposes

…coming to the contention whether each transaction can be considered as\na separate source of income.\n6.5.\nThe Ld.AR placed reliance on the following observations by Hon'ble\nMumbai Special Bench in case of Montgomery Emerging Market Fund reported\nin (2006) 100 ITD 217 in support of the above argument. Hon'ble Special\nbench observed the distinction between 'source of income' and 'head of\nincome' and that there can be multiple source of income under the same head\nof income. Hon'ble Special Bench also observed that, what is taxed by the\nAct is not different source of income, independently and that income from…

SCHWAB EMERGING MARKETS EQUITY ETF ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX INTERNATIONAL TAXATION -4(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical\npurposes

…oming to the contention whether each transaction can be considered as\na separate source of income.\n6. 5. The Ld.AR placed reliance on the following observations by Hon'ble\nMumbai Special Bench in case of Montgomery Emerging Market Fund reported\nin (2006) 100 ITD 217 in support of the above argument. Hon'ble Special\nbench observed the distinction between 'source of income' and 'head of\nincome' and that there can be multiple source of income under the same head\nof income. Hon'ble Special Bench also observed that, what is taxed by the\nAct is not different source of income, independently and that income from…

ISHARES CORE MSCI EMERGING MARKETS ETF (AS A SUCESSOR TO ISHARES CORE EMERGING MARKETS MAURITIUS COMPANY),MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) 2(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical\npurposes

…oming to the contention whether each transaction can be considered as\na separate source of income.\n6. 5. The Ld.AR placed reliance on the following observations by Hon'ble\nMumbai Special Bench in case of Montgomery Emerging Market Fund reported\nin (2006) 100 ITD 217 in support of the above argument. Hon'ble Special\nbench observed the distinction between 'source of income' and 'head of\nincome' and that there can be multiple source of income under the same head\nof income. Hon'ble Special Bench also observed that, what is taxed by the\nAct is not different source of income, independently and that income from…

PRASHANT KOTHARI,SINGAPORE vs. CIT A (57) MUMBAI, OFFICE OF COMMISSIONER OF APPEALS MUMBAI

In the result, the additional ground of\nappeal is allowed

…ing to the contention whether each transaction can be considered\nas a separate source of income.\n\n6. 5. The Ld.AR placed reliance on the following observations by Hon'ble\nMumbai Special Bench in case of Montgomery Emerging Market Fund\nreported in (2006) 100 ITD 217 in support of the above argument. Hon'ble\nSpecial bench observed the distinction between 'source of income' and 'head\nof income' and that there can be multiple source of income under the same\nhead of income. Hon'ble Special Bench also observed that, what is taxed by\nthe Act is not different source of income, independently and that income\nfro…

BAY CAPITAL INDIA FUND LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. CIT (A) 55, MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

…oming to the contention whether each transaction can be considered as\na separate source of income.\n6. 5. The Ld.AR placed reliance on the following observations by Hon'ble\nMumbai Special Bench in case of Montgomery Emerging Market Fund reported\nin (2006) 100 ITD 217 in support of the above argument. Hon'ble Special\nbench observed the distinction between 'source of income' and 'head of\nincome' and that there can be multiple source of income under the same head\nof income. Hon'ble Special Bench also observed that, what is taxed by the\nAct is not different source of income, independently and that income from…

QUALCOMM ASIA PACIFIC PTE LTD,SINGAPORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAX -CIRCLE 3(3)(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

…considered by the coordinate bench in the case of Matrix Partners India Investment Holdings, LLC (supra) 6.5. The Ld.AR placed reliance on the following observations by Hon’ble Mumbai Special Bench in case of Montgomery Emerging Market Fund reported in (2006) 100 ITD 217 in support of the above argument. Hon’ble Special bench observed the distinction between 'source of income' and 'head of income' and that there can be multiple source of income under the same head of income. Hon’ble Special Bench also observed that, what is taxed by the Act is not different source of income, independently and that income from dif…

MATRIX PARTNERS INDIA INVESTMENT HOLDINGS, LLC,MAURITIUS vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Ms. Padmavathy S ()

…Now coming to the contention whether each transaction can be considered as a separate source of income. 6.5. The Ld.AR placed reliance on the following observations by Hon’ble Mumbai Special Bench in case of Montgomery Emerging Market Fund reported in (2006) 100 ITD 217 in support of the above argument. Hon’ble Special bench observed the distinction between 'source of income' and 'head of income' and that there can be multiple source of income under the same head of income. Hon’ble Special Bench also observed that, what is taxed by the Act is not different source of income, independently and that income from dif…

EMERGING MARKETS INDEX NON LENDABLE FUND,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-2(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shrisandeep Singh Karhail, Jm A.Y.2021 – 22 Emerging Markets Index The Deputy Commissioner Of Non-Lendable Fund Income Tax (International C/O Ernst & Young Llp Taxation) – Circle –2 (2) (1) 17Th Floor 1722, 17T H Floor, Vs. The Ruby Air India Building, 29, Senapati Bapat Marg Nariman Point, Dadar (West) Mumbai – 21 Mumbai – 28 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan Aaaae3262D Assessee By Shri Anish Thacker & Pranay Gandhi Revenue By Shri Anil Sant Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax Date Of Hearing 7 May 2024 Date Of Pronouncement 5 August 2024

…at is most beneficial to it, even if such a basis has the effect of reducing the overall tax liability. He placed reliance on the decision of the honourable Kolkata High Court in ITA number 812 of the eight dated 19 December 2008, decision of special bench in 100 ITD 217. He further referred to several judicial precedents. He further stated and has drawn our reference towards the intimation under section 143 (1) of the act dated 22 September 2022 wherein the set off of brought forward short-term capital loss from earlier years against the current short-term capital gain has been allowed. Thus, it was submitted th…

INDIA ACORN FUND LTD ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-2(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Smt Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SMT KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM & MS PADMAVATHY S, AM I.T.A. No. 4556/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year: 2021-22) India Acorn Fund Ltd. DCIT (Int. Tax) Circle-2(1)(1), Room No. 1722,17th Floor, C/o Ernst & Young LLP, 17th Floor, The Ruby, 29, Air India Building, Vs. Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar Nariman Point, (West), Mumbai-400028. Mumbai-400021. PAN : AAECI5389R Appellant) : Respondent) Appellant/Assessee by : Shri MADHUR Agarwal / Fenil Bhat, CA Revenue/Respondent by : Shri Anil Sant, Addl. CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 28.05.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 29.05.2024 O R…

JANE STREET ASIA CAPITAL LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX INT TAX CIRCLE 3(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JM & MS PADMAVATHY S, AM I.T.A. No. 3329/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year: 2020-21) Jane Street Asia Capital Ltd. The ACIT (Int. Tax) Circle- Level 6th North Avenue Maker 3(1)(1), Room No. 1605, 16th Floor, Air India Building, Maxity, G. Block, Bandra Kurla Vs. Complex, Mumbai-400051. Nariman Point, PAN : AADCJ0800F Mumbai-400021. Appellant) : Respondent) Appellant/Assessee by : Shri Dhanesh Bafna a/w Hardik Nirmal, CA Revenue/Respondent by : Shri Anil Sant, Sr. DR : 16.05.2024 Date of Hearing : 17.05.2024 Date of Pronouncement O R D E…

EAST BRIDGE CAPITAL MASTER FUND I LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAX)-2(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhआ.अ.सं.2976 2976/मुं/2023 (िन.व. 2020-2021) 2976 2976 East Bridge Capital Master Fund I Ltd. C/O. Ernst & Young Llp, 17Th Floor, The Ruby, 29Th Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar West, Mumbai – 400 028 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan:Aaece8814F बनाम Vs.

…und of appeal.” (Emphasized by us) 9. In the case of JP Morgan Fund (supra), the Tribunal had dealt with similar controversy. The Co-ordinate Bench after placing reliance on the decision of Special Bench in the case of Montgomery Emerging Markets Fund [(2006)100 ITD 217/Mum/SB] dismissed Revenue’s appeal. Thus, in light of un-disputed facts of the case and the decision referred above, we have no hesitation in accepting Assessee’s manner of set-off of STCL category liable to tax at the rate of 15%, against STCG taxable at the rate of 30%. Thus, the Assessee succeeds on ground no.1 to 4 of appeal. 10. In ground n…

INDIUM IV (MAURITIUS) HOLDINGS LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMM. OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) 2(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleindium Iv (Mauritius) Holdings Limited V. Dcit (International Transaction)-2(2)(1) Office 201, 2Nd Floor, Sterling Tower Room No. 1722, 17Th Floor Air India Building, Nariman Point 14 Poudriere Street, Port Louis Mumbai – 400 021 Mauritius Pan: Aacci4907P (Appellant) (Respondent)

…lity to carry forward the net long term capital loss for set-off against future long term capital gains. 6. In this regards, reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Special Bench of the Mumbai ITAT in case of Montgomery Emerging Markets Fund (2006) (100 ITD 217) (Mum Trib.) (SB) (Refer Pg. No. 72 to 83 of the Legal Paperbook) wherein it has been held that each source of income is a separate source of income and in multiple sources of income, an assessee is entitled to adopt the provisions of the Act for one source while applying provisions of treaty for the other source. The relevant extract is reproduc…