“Section 25(4)”

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

sums, they must be included in the total income for the purpose of determining the rate. It is therefore argued that although under Section 25(4) an exemption is given to the assessee because there is a succession to the business carried on and no tax is payable ... that the language used in all these sections, to which I have referred, is similar, if not indentical, with the language used in Section 25(4), viz., that the tax is not payable on these different sums. Now, if Mr. Joshi's contention was sound, then with regard to these

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

sums, they must be included in the total income for the purpose of determining the rate. It is therefore argued that although under Section 25(4) an exemption is given to the assessee because there is a succession to the business carried on and no tax is payable ... that the language used in all these sections, to which I have referred, is similar, if not indentical, with the language used in Section 25(4), viz., that the tax is not payable on these different sums. Now, if Mr. Joshi's contention was sound, then with regard to these

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

sums,\nthey must be included in the total income for the purpose of determining the rate.\nIt is therefore argued that although under Section 25(4) an exemption is given to\nthe assessee because there is a succession to the business carried on and no tax\nis payable ... that the language used in\nall these sections, to which I have referred, is similar, if not indentical, with the\nlanguage used in Section 25(4), viz., that the tax is not payable on these different\nsums. Now, if Mr. Joshi's contention was sound, then with regard to these

ISHARES MSCI INDIA ETF(AS A SUCESSOR TO ISHARES INDIA INDEX MARUITIUS COMPANY),MUMBAI vs. DCIT (INT)-2(2)(2), MUMBAI

sums,\nthey must be included in the total income for the purpose of determining the rate.\nIt is therefore argued that although under Section 25(4) an exemption is given to\nthe assessee because there is a succession to the business carried on and no tax\nis payable ... that the language used in\nall these sections, to which I have referred, is similar, if not indentical, with the\nlanguage used in Section 25(4), viz., that the tax is not payable on these different\nsums. Now, if Mr. Joshi's contention was sound, then with regard to these

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

sums,\nthey must be included in the total income for the purpose of determining the rate.\nIt is therefore argued that although under Section 25(4) an exemption is given to\nthe assessee because there is a succession to the business carried on and no tax\nis payable ... that the language used in\nall these sections, to which I have referred, is similar, if not indentical, with the\nlanguage used in Section 25(4), viz., that the tax is not payable on these different\nsums. Now, if Mr. Joshi's contention was sound, then with regard to these

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

sums,\nthey must be included in the total income for the purpose of determining the rate.\nIt is therefore argued that although under Section 25(4) an exemption is given to\nthe assessee because there is a succession to the business carried on and no tax\nis payable ... that the language used in\nall these sections, to which I have referred, is similar, if not indentical, with the\nlanguage used in Section 25(4), viz., that the tax is not payable on these different\nsums. Now, if Mr. Joshi's contention was sound, then with regard to these

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

sums,\nthey must be included in the total income for the purpose of determining the rate.\nIt is therefore argued that although under Section 25(4) an exemption is given to\nthe assessee because there is a succession to the business carried on and no tax\nis payable ... that the language used in\nall these sections, to which I have referred, is similar, if not indentical, with the\nlanguage used in Section 25(4), viz., that the tax is not payable on these different\nsums. Now, if Mr. Joshi's contention was sound, then with regard to these

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

sums,\nthey must be included in the total income for the purpose of determining the rate.\nIt is therefore argued that although under Section 25(4) an exemption is given to\nthe assessee because there is a succession to the business carried on and no tax\nis payable ... that the language used in\nall these sections, to which I have referred, is similar, if not indentical, with the\nlanguage used in Section 25(4), viz., that the tax is not payable on these different\nsums. Now, if Mr. Joshi's contention was sound, then with regard to these

ISHARES MSCI EM UCITS ETF USD DIST ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-2(2)(2), MUMBAI

sums,\nthey must be included in the total income for the purpose of determining the rate.\nIt is therefore argued that although under Section 25(4) an exemption is given to\nthe assessee because there is a succession to the business carried on and no tax\nis payable ... that the language used in\nall these sections, to which I have referred, is similar, if not indentical, with the\nlanguage used in Section 25(4), viz., that the tax is not payable on these different\nsums. Now, if Mr. Joshi's contention was sound, then with regard to these

ISHARES MSCI INDIA UCITS ETF ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION )-2(2)(2), MUMBAI

sums,\nthey must be included in the total income for the purpose of determining the rate.\nIt is therefore argued that although under Section 25(4) an exemption is given to\nthe assessee because there is a succession to the business carried on and no tax\nis payable ... that the language used in\nall these sections, to which I have referred, is similar, if not indentical, with the\nlanguage used in Section 25(4), viz., that the tax is not payable on these different\nsums. Now, if Mr. Joshi's contention was sound, then with regard to these

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

sums,\nthey must be included in the total income for the purpose of determining the rate.\nIt is therefore argued that although under Section 25(4) an exemption is given to\nthe assessee because there is a succession to the business carried on and no tax\nis payable ... that the language used in\nall these sections, to which I have referred, is similar, if not indentical, with the\nlanguage used in Section 25(4), viz., that the tax is not payable on these different\nsums. Now, if Mr. Joshi's contention was sound, then with regard to these

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

sums,\nthey must be included in the total income for the purpose of determining the rate.\nIt is therefore argued that although under Section 25(4) an exemption is given to\nthe assessee because there is a succession to the business carried on and no tax\nis payable ... that the language used in\nall these sections, to which I have referred, is similar, if not indentical, with the\nlanguage used in Section 25(4), viz., that the tax is not payable on these different\nsums. Now, if Mr. Joshi's contention was sound, then with regard to these

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

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

sums,\nthey must be included in the total income for the purpose of determining the rate.\nIt is therefore argued that although under Section 25(4) an exemption is given to\nthe assessee because there is a succession to the business carried on and no tax is\npayable ... that the\nlanguage used in all these sections, to which I have referred, is similar, if not\nindentical, with the language used in Section 25(4), viz., that the tax is not payable\non these different sums. Now, if Mr. Joshi's contention was sound, then with\nregard to these

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

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

sums,\nthey must be included in the total income for the purpose of determining the rate.\nIt is therefore argued that although under Section 25(4) an exemption is given to\nthe assessee because there is a succession to the business carried on and no tax\nis payable ... that the language used in\nall these sections, to which I have referred, is similar, if not indentical, with the\nlanguage used in Section 25(4), viz., that the tax is not payable on these different\nsums. Now, if Mr. Joshi's contention was sound, then with regard to these

L & T TECHNOLOGIES SERVICES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the additional grounds of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjeel&T Technologies Services Ltd Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income L&T House, N.M. Marg, Tax, Circle 2(2)(1), Mumbai Room No.545, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Mumbai Pan: Aaccl4310P Bhavan, Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai-400 020 Appellant Respondent

decision and stated that theruling of the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as Section 170 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [Corresponding to section 25(4) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922] - Succession of business other than on death - Assessment year 1948-49 - Export business carried on by father ... more effectively - Ultimately business carried on by son was transferred to a limited company during relevant accounting year and he claimed benefit under section 25(4) of 1922 Act - Whether on facts it could be said that there was a succession within meaning of section 25(4

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 ()

sums, they must be included in the total income for the purpose of determining the rate. It is therefore argued that although under Section 25(4) an exemption is given to the assessee because there is a succession to the business carried on and no tax is payable ... that the language used in all these sections, to which I have referred, is similar, if not indentical, with the language used in Section 25(4), viz., that the tax is not payable on these different sums. Now, if Mr. Joshi's contention was sound, then with regard to these