JCIT v. Montgomery Emerging Marketing Funds,\n

100 ITD 217Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2006#4943 most cited

What is JCIT v. Montgomery Emerging Marketing Funds,\n authority for?

Each transaction can be considered a separate source of income, allowing taxpayers to choose between the Income-tax Act and a Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) for each transaction. Section 70(2) of the Act does not prescribe an order for setting off specific short-term capital losses against specific short-term capital gains, favouring the taxpayer in interpretation.

23

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2026.

Also referred to as

JCIT v. Montgomery Emerging Marketing Funds · section 90(2) · section 70(2) · DTAA benefit · choice of Act and Treaty · separate source of income · short-term capital loss set-off

Sections most often in play

Section 111ASection 270ASection 143(3)Section 48Section 70(2)Section 115ADSection 234BSection 70

Issues it is cited on

section 70(2)section 115adsection 74dtaa benefitsection 2(45)section 66section 111asection 111treaty benefitssection 70section 112asection 115a

Judgments citing JCIT v. Montgomery Emerging Marketing Funds,\n

Credit Suisse (Singapore ) Limited, Singapore vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (International Tax), Mumbai-2

In the result, appeals by the assessee for 2016-17 and 2017-18 are allowed

ITA 1008/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं. 1007/मुं/2022 ("न.व.2016-17) आअसं. 1008/मुं/2022 ("न.व.2017-18) Credit Suisse (Singapore) Limited, C/O. Delloite Haskins & Sells Chartered Accountants Llp, 30Th Floor, Tower 3, One International Centre, Senapati Bapat Marg, Elphinstone Road (West), Mumbai 400 013 Pan: Aaccc-7328-N ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax (International Taxation) Mumbai-2, 1706, 17Th Floor, Air India Building, ...... ""तवाद"/Respondent Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 038

For Appellant: Shri P.J.Pardiwala Sr. Advocate with Shri. Paras SavlaFor Respondent: Ms. Surabhi Sharma, CIT DR and Ms. Samruddhi Dhananjay Hande, Sr. AR
Section 263

…see pointed that the assessee had cited various decisions in support of its contentions, however, the CIT rejected the same in a summary manner. The ld. Counsel for the assessee placed reliance on the following decisions: (i) Montgomery Emerging Market Fund, 100 ITD 217 (Mum-S.B); (ii) Goldman Sachs Investments (Mauritius) Ltd., 120 taxmann.com 23 (Mum); (iii) Flagship Indian Investment Co (Mauaritius) Ltd. 38 SOT 426 (Mum-Trib) The ld. Counsel for the assessee asserted that on merits of the issue, impugned order is contrary to the decisions of the Tribunal. 2.1. The ld. Counsel submitted that only for the reas…

Credit Suisse (Singapore ) Limited, Singapore vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (International Tax), Mumbai-2

In the result, appeals by the assessee for 2016-17 and 2017-18 are allowed

ITA 1007/MUM/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं. 1007/मुं/2022 ("न.व.2016-17) आअसं. 1008/मुं/2022 ("न.व.2017-18) Credit Suisse (Singapore) Limited, C/O. Delloite Haskins & Sells Chartered Accountants Llp, 30Th Floor, Tower 3, One International Centre, Senapati Bapat Marg, Elphinstone Road (West), Mumbai 400 013 Pan: Aaccc-7328-N ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax (International Taxation) Mumbai-2, 1706, 17Th Floor, Air India Building, ...... ""तवाद"/Respondent Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 038

For Appellant: Shri P.J.Pardiwala Sr. Advocate with Shri. Paras SavlaFor Respondent: Ms. Surabhi Sharma, CIT DR and Ms. Samruddhi Dhananjay Hande, Sr. AR
Section 263

…see pointed that the assessee had cited various decisions in support of its contentions, however, the CIT rejected the same in a summary manner. The ld. Counsel for the assessee placed reliance on the following decisions: (i) Montgomery Emerging Market Fund, 100 ITD 217 (Mum-S.B); (ii) Goldman Sachs Investments (Mauritius) Ltd., 120 taxmann.com 23 (Mum); (iii) Flagship Indian Investment Co (Mauaritius) Ltd. 38 SOT 426 (Mum-Trib) The ld. Counsel for the assessee asserted that on merits of the issue, impugned order is contrary to the decisions of the Tribunal. 2.1. The ld. Counsel submitted that only for the reas…

Nomura India Investment Fund, Mumbai vs. Addl DIT (It) RG 4, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 8140/MUM/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Dec 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: S/Shri Saktijit Dey & Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri J D MistryFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar
Section 115

…Raptakos Brett and Co. Ltd. [Income Tax Appeal no. 357 of 2016 dated 09.10.2018] 11 ITA 8140/Mum/2010 Nomura India Investment Fund Mother Fund • Raptakos Brett & Co. Ltd. vs. DCIT [2015] 58 taxmann.com 115 • JCIT vs. Montgomery Emerging Markets Funds [2006] 100 ITD 217 (Mum) (SB) • United Investments vs. ACIT (ITA No. 511/Kol/2017 for A.Y. 2013-14 order dated 01.07.2019) • ACIT vs. Shri Somnath Vaijanath Sakre (ITA No.2986/Pun/2016 for A.Y. 2012-13, order dated 08.03.2019) 10. The learned senior counsel submitted, the decision of the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in case of Raptakos Brett & Co. Ltd. (supra)…