“Section 74(1)”

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. S.S. JEWELLERY, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Hon’Ble

| आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण "ायपीठ, मुंबई | IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, HON

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(2), MUMBAI, MUMAI vs. DIVESH PRAKASHCHAND JAIN, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Hon’Ble

| आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण "ायपीठ, मुंबई | IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, HON

S S JEWELLERY,ZAVERI BAJAR,MUMBAI vs. ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), MUMBAI, AIR INDIA BUILDING,NARIMAN POINT,MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Hon’Ble

| आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण "ायपीठ, मुंबई | IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, HON

ASIA INVESTMENT CORPORATION (MAURITIUS) LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INT TAXATION)1(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result the appeals filed by the assessee for both the years under consideration stands partly allowed

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

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND MS. PADMAVATHY S (ACCOUNTANT

ASIA INVESTMENT CORPORATION (MAURITIUS ) LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INT TAX)-1(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result the appeals filed by the assessee for both the years under consideration stands partly allowed

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

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND MS. PADMAVATHY S (ACCOUNTANT

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 ()

capital gains are to be examined from the vantage point of a complete "A.Y." (section 45) and on an aggregative "net" basis (sub-section 74(1)). 8. The case of DIT (International Taxation) v. IBM World Trade Corpn. [2020] 120 taxmann.com 151 (Kar.) IBM World Trade Corpn. v. DDIT (International ... carry forward the loss only after set off from the capital gains earned if any. He placed reliance on the provisions of section 74(1) to submit that the tax treatment adopted in respect of Capital gains and loss from transfer of Indian securities must be adopted. He thus placed

TVF FUND LTD., MAURITIUS,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-4(1)(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

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

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

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND MS. PADMAVATHY S (ACCOUNTANT

MORGAN STANLEY MAURITIUS COMPANY LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-CIRCLE 3(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2020-21 Morgan Stanley Mauritius Company Dy. Cit (International Taxation) – Ltd., Circle 3(2)(2), Vs. C/O S R B C & Associates Llp, 14Th 16Th Floor, Room No. 1615, Air India Floor, The Ruby, 29, Senapati Bapat Building Nariman Point, Marg, Dadar (West), Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400028. Pan No. Aadcm 5927 G Appellant Respondent

part of the "total and therefore the "capital losses" will also not form part of the "total income" of the assessee. Applicability of section 74(1)will require (i income" of the assessee. Applicability of section 74(1)will require (i income" of the assessee. Applicability of section 74(1 ... tenable. As discussed in the preceding years as per IT Act is not tenable. As discussed in the preceding paragraph, section 74(1) will not be applicable to the assessee as the aph, section 74(1) will not be applicable to the assessee as the aph, section 74(1) will

DY. CIT CIRCLE 3(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ASIAN PAINTS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by assessee and Revenue for A

Bench: IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘A‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘A‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SMT RENU JAUHRI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

DY CIT CIRCLE -3(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ASIAN PAINTS LIMITED, MUMBAI

{ "clean_text": "IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘A’ BENCH MUMBAI\nBEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER &\nSMT RENU JAUHRI

DY CIT CIRCLE 3(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ASIAN PAINTS, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by assessee and Revenue for\nA

{ "clean_text": "IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘A‘ BENCH MUMBAI\nBEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SMT RENU JAUHRI

ASIAN PAINTS LIMITED,SANTACRUZ vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LTU CIRCLE 2, CUFFE PARADE

In the result, appeals filed by assessee and Revenue for\nA

{ "clean_text": "IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘A’ BENCH MUMBAI\nBEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER &\nSMT RENU JAUHRI

ASIAN PAINTS LIMITED,SANTACRUZ vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LTU CIRCLE 1, CUFFE PARADE

In the result, appeals filed by assessee and Revenue for\nA

{ "clean_text": "IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘A‘ BENCH MUMBAI\nBEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER &\nSMT RENU JAUHRI

ASIAN PAINTS LIMITED,SANTACRUZ vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

{ "clean_text": "IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘A’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SMT RENU JAUHRI

SUKHPAL SINGH AHLUWALIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) WARD 1(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm Income Tax Officer Sukhpal Singh Ahluwalia (International Tax) Ward 6/24, Milan Building, 1(1)(1), 87, Tardeo Road, Room No.1817A, 18 Th Vs. Opp. Tardeo A C Market, Floor, Air India Building, Mumbai-400 034 Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Azupa6884D Assessee By : Shri Rashmikant C. Modi & Ms. Ketki Rajeshirke, Ars Revenue By : Shri Soumendu Kumar Sash, Dr Date Of Hearing: 18.04.2024 27.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement :

carried forward and set off against long term capital gain in the later assessment year in terms of the provisions of section 74(1)(b) of the Act. The learned counsel for the assessee had relied on several judicial pronouncements before us but those decisions did not deal with

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)

taxable in India.  Net long-term capital loss (non-STT paid) of INR 143,511,469 was incurred during the year. Section 74(1) of the Income-tax Act. 1961 (Act) does not permit offsetting such long-term capital losses against short-term capital gains. Such long-term capital losses ... under consideration which are not taxable in India by virtue of Article 13(4) of India Mauritius DTAA owing to the provisions of section 74(1) of the Act. 9. In light of the above, it is humbly submitted that: The denial of carry forward of forward of long-term

DY CIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-1(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S. BLUEBAY MAURITUS INVESTMENT LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

taking a view that the computation of total income has to be solely determined as per the provisions of the Act as per section 74(1) and not on treaty. Wherein loss is to be ascertained to be carried forwarded the subsequent assessment year on the base of net result

DY CIT CC-2(3), MUMBAI vs. GAURI AVINASH BHOSALE, MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the learned Assessing

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

ground of appeal raised by the Assessing Officer is not sustainable in view of the provisions of Section 74(1)(a) of the Act, which allows set off of loss related to short term capital asset brought forward to be set off of capital gain earned in respect