“Section 70(2)”

Section References (mined)Section 70Section 70(2)71 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 70(2) is MavaliyaBhikhubhaiBalabhai v. ITO (TDS)\n (70 Taxmann.com 45), cited in 93 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 70(2)

MavaliyaBhikhubhaiBalabhai v. ITO (TDS)\n

70 Taxmann.com 45 · 2016 · High Court

citing judgments

Interest received under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, forms an integral part of enhanced compensation and is not taxable as "Income from Other Sources" under Section 56(2)(viii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Finance Act, 2009 amendments do not alter the compensatory nature of such interest.

Bai Sonabai Hirji Agiary Trust v. ITO

93 ITD 70 · 2005 · ITAT

citing judgments

For the purpose of accumulation of income under section 11(1)(a), the calculation is to be made on the gross receipts of the trust before deducting any expenses. This interpretation is based on the plain language of section 11(1)(a) and is supported by Supreme Court decisions.

Goodyear (I) Ltd. v. ITO

73 ITD 189 · 2000 · ITAT

citing judgments

Expenditure incurred for the transfer of the use of licenses, without acquiring ownership rights or an enduring benefit, constitutes revenue expenditure. Such payments are allowable as a deduction if they are directly relatable to services in the revenue field.

JCIT v. Montgomery Emerging Marketing Funds,\n

100 ITD 217 · 2006 · ITAT

citing judgments

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.

Kishorebhai Bhikhabhai Virani v. ACIT

367 ITR 261 · 2014 · High Court

citing judgments

Capital gains arising from the transfer of equity shares and equity-oriented mutual funds are exempt if the shares are long-term capital assets, transferred on the stock exchange, and the sale transaction is subject to levy. The case also relates to the application of beneficial provisions and the rejection of claims under Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements (DTAA).

Raptakos Brett & Co. Ltd. v. DCIT

69 SOT 383 · 2015 · ITAT

citing judgments

Long-term capital loss on the sale of shares can be set off and carried forward under sections 70 and 71, as section 10(38) only exempts long-term capital gains and does not encompass capital losses.

ACIT v. J.P. Morgan India Investment Company Mauritius Limited

143 Taxmann.com 82 · 2022 · ITAT

citing judgments

Where an assessee claims treaty benefits under Article 13(4) of the India-Mauritius DTAA, exempting capital gains from Indian taxation, brought forward short-term and long-term capital losses cannot be set off against such exempt gains, nor can they be carried forward to subsequent years.

J.S. Capital LLC v. ACIT (Int. Taxation)

160 Taxmann.com 286 · 2024 · Reported

citing judgments

The set-off of short-term capital loss against capital gains is permissible under section 70(2) of the Income-tax Act, regardless of whether the gains are taxed at normal rates or special rates. This applies even when the assessee has capital gains chargeable to tax at different rates.

Judgments citing Section 70(2)

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

ITA 2150/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jun 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

arising on transactions subjected to STT and those not subjected to STT are no different and satisfy the 'similar computation' condition specified in section 70(2) of the Act; 3. Failed to appreciate that since section 70 of the Act does not provide any hierarchy for set-off, the short ... against short-term capital gains (on which STT was not paid). Before proceeding further, it is relevant to note the provisions of section 70(2) of the Act, which deals with the set off of short-term capital loss, and the same reads as follows: "(2) Where the result

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

ITA 2149/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jun 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

Ishares Msci Em Ucits Etf Usd Dist, 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

ITA 2148/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jun 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

arising on transactions subjected to STT and those not subjected to STT are no different and satisfy the ‘similar computation’ condition specified in section 70(2) of the Act; 3. Failed to appreciate that since section 70 of the Act does not provide any hierarchy for set-off, the short ... against short-term capital gains (on which STT was not paid). Before proceeding further, it is relevant to note the provisions of section 70(2) of the Act, which deals with the set off of short-term capital loss, and the same reads as follows: - "(2) Where the result

Ishares Msci India Ucits Etf, 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

ITA 2147/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jun 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

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

ITA 2134/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jun 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

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

ITA 2085/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jun 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

Emerging Markets Index Non-Lendable Fund, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation )-2(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2073/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jun 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Anish Thacker &For Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 270ASection 70Section 70(2)

arising on transactions subjected to STT and those not subjected to STT are no different and satisfy the 'similar computation condition specified in section 70(2) of the Act; 3. failed to appreciate that since section 70 of the Act does not provide any hierarchy for set-off, the short ... against short-term capital gains (on which STT was not paid). Before proceeding further, it is relevant to note the provisions of section 70(2) of the Act, which deals with the set off of short- term capital loss, and the same reads as follows: - "(2) Where the result

I Shares Esg Aware Msci Em Etf, 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

ITA 2072/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jun 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Anish Thacker &For Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 270ASection 70Section 70(2)

Emerging Markets Equity Index Master Fund, Mumbai vs. Deputy CIT (Int. Tax)-2(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2040/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jun 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Anish Thacker &For Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 270ASection 70Section 70(2)

Teacher Retirement System of Texas, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation )-4(1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1371/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 May 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Girish Agrawalteacher Retirement System Of Texas, C/O Ernst & Young Llp, 17Th Floor, The Ruby, 29, Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar (West), ............... Appellant Mumbai - 400028 Pan: Aaatt9387R V/S Acit (It) – 4(1)(2), Kautilya Bhavan, ……………… Respondent G-Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai - 400051 Assessee By : Shri Anish Thacker Shri Pranay Gandhi Revenue By : Shri Soumendu K. Dash, Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Shri Anish ThackerFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu K. Dash, Sr.DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(3)Section 144C(5)Section 234CSection 270ASection 70Section 70(2)

arising on transactions subjected to STT and those not subjected to STT are no different and satisfy the 'similar computation' condition specified in section 70(2) of the Act. 3. failed to appreciate that section 70 of the Act does not provide any hierarchy for set-off of losses ... gains having a differential rate of taxation should not be rejected and an adjustment be made accordingly. In response, the assessee submitted that section 70(2) of the Act provides for set off of short- term capital loss against the income arising under similar computation from any other capital asset

Eastspring Investments India Equity Open Limited, Mauritius vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax - International Taxation Circle 2(2)(1) - Mumbai, Mumbai

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

ITA 1219/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 May 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy Sshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Ketan VedFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 144C(5)Section 70Section 70(2)

arising on transactions subjected to STT and those not subjected to STT are no different and satisfy the 'similar computation' condition specified in Section 70(2) of the Act. 1. 4. The learned DCIT failed to appreciate that Section 70 of the Act does not provide any hierarchy ... against short-term capital gains (on which STT was not paid). Before proceeding further, it is relevant to note the provisions of Section 70(2) of the Act, which deals with the set off of short- term capital loss, and the same reads as follows: - "(2) Where the result

Bay Capital India Fund Limited, Mumbai vs. CIT (A) 55, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 6355/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Apr 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaranshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Sukhsagar Syal, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Monika H. Pande, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 195Section 250Section 70Section 70(2)Section 70(3)

same cannot be ITA No.6355/Mum/2024 (A.Y. 2019-20) 4 considered as income for the purpose of setting of the capital loss either under section 70(2) or under section 70(3) of the Act. 6. On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative ("learned DR") vehemently relied upon the impugned

ACIT-2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Hdfc Bank Ltd ( Merged Entity Hdfc Investments Limited ), Mumbai

ITA 2980/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, Advocate a

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT

Hdfc Bank Limited( As Successor to Hdfc Ltd), Mumbai vs. DCIT- 2(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 2666/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, Advocate andFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, CIT DR

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT

Hdfc Bank Limited (As Successor to Hdfc Ltd), Mumbai vs. DCIT 2(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 2665/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 143(3)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT

Hdfc Bank Ltd., (As Successor to Housing Development Finance Corporation Ltd), Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle-2(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 3717/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, Advocate andFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, CIT D

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT

ACIT-1(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Housing Development Finance Corporation Ltd., Delhi

ITA 2049/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

HDFC Bank Ltd. ITA No.4315/MUM/2007 and Ors. AYs 2002-03 to 2020-21 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E

ACIT-1(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Housing Development Finance Corporation Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 2046/MUM/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, Advocate and

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT

Hdfc Bank Limited (As Successor to Housing Development Finance Corporation Ltd.), Mumbai vs. DCIT, Range-1(1)(2), Mumbai

ITA 1890/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT

Hdfc Bank Limited (As Successor to Housing Development Finance Corporation Ltd), Mumbai vs. DCIT 1(1), Mumbai

ITA 2867/MUM/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, Advocate and Shri Ninad Patade, CAFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, CIT DR

Section 1

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT