DCIT CEN 5 3, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are allowed partly

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

gains on for in the accounts on account of appreciation of or gains on for in the accounts on account of appreciation of or gains on the realization of investments shall be the realization of investments shall be treated as part of the treated as part of the profits and gains: profits and gains: Provided that the Assessing Officer

DCIT CEN 5 3, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are allowed partly

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

gains on for in the accounts on account of appreciation of or gains on for in the accounts on account of appreciation of or gains on the realization of investments shall be the realization of investments shall be treated as part of the treated as part of the profits and gains: profits and gains: Provided that the Assessing Officer

TATA COMMUNICATIONS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI

In the result, the question of law referred to the Special Bench is answered in favour of the assessee

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Arun Khodpiatata Communications Limited Pr. Cit, Videsh Sanchar Bhavan, Mumbai-1 Vs. M. G. Road, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 Pan/Gir No. Aaacv 2808 C (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri J. D. Mistri Respondent By : Shri Ritesh Misra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 25.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.09.2025 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey: The Present Appeal, At The Instance Of The Assessee, Assails Order Dated 21.03.2025, Passed U/S. 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ For Short), By Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (‘Ld. Pcit’ For Short), Pertaining To The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2018-19. 2. Though The Assessee Has Raised Multiple Grounds, Both On Jurisdictional Issues As Well As On Merits, However, There Is Consensus Between The Parties That The Appeal Can Be Decided On Merits, In Which Event, There Is No Need To Go Into Various Other Issues Raised In Appeal.

10 Tata Communications Limited vs. Pr. CIT off against long term capital loss. This judgment again clarifies the interpretation of section 50 and concept of a long term capital asset. 29. Again in another judgment Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT vs Pursarth Trading Co. Pvt Ltd in Income Tax appeal no. 123 of 2013 judgment an order dated

SAMIR NARAIN BHOJWANI ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 4(2)(1), MUMBAI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

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

II: Gains in respect of long term capital assets, computed under section 50 of the Act, have been charged to tax at normal rates instead of being charged to tax at the rates mentioned in section 112 of the Act 2.1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the AO erred in charging

FIDELITY SALEM STREET TRUST FIDELITY SAI EMERGING MARKETS INDEX FUND ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-2(3)(1), MUMBAI

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

10. This view has been followed by the Co-ordinate Benches in JS Capital LLC in ITA No. Assessment Year 2022-2023 3396/Mum/2023, East Bridge capital Master Fund I Ltd. in ITA No. 2976/Mum/2023, DWS India Equity Fund in ITA No. 5055/Mum/2010, M/s. T. Rowe Price International Discovery Fund in ITA No. 7627/Mum/2011. 11. Considering the facts of the case

EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF TEXAS ,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT (INT. TAX)-2(2)(1), MUMBAI

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

10. This view has been followed by the Co-ordinate Benches in JS Capital LLC in ITA No. Assessment Year 2022-2023 3396/Mum/2023, East Bridge capital Master Fund I Ltd. in ITA No. 2976/Mum/2023, DWS India Equity Fund in ITA No. 5055/Mum/2010, M/s. T. Rowe Price International Discovery Fund in ITA No. 7627/Mum/2011. 11. Considering the facts of the case

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

10 of the appeal\nof the assessee and direct the assessing officer to allow set-off of short-term\ncapital loss suffered by the assessee against short-term capital gain of Rs.\n791,221/-.”\n\n14. We find that similar findings have been rendered by the Co-ordinate\nBenches of the Tribunal in favour of the taxpayer in the following

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

10 of the appeal\nof the assessee and direct the assessing officer to allow set-off of short-term\ncapital loss suffered by the assessee against short-term capital gain of Rs.\n791,221/-.”\n\n14. We find that similar findings have been rendered by the Co-ordinate\nBenches of the Tribunal in favour of the taxpayer in the following

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

10 of the appeal\nof the assessee and direct the assessing officer to allow set-off of short-term\ncapital loss suffered by the assessee against short-term capital gain of Rs.\n791,221/-.”\n14. We find that similar findings have been rendered by the Co-ordinate\nBenches of the Tribunal in favour of the taxpayer in the following decisions

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

10 of the appeal\nof the assessee and direct the assessing officer to allow set-off of short-term\ncapital loss suffered by the assessee against short-term capital gain of Rs.\n791,221/-.”\n14.\nWe find that similar findings have been rendered by the Co-ordinate\nBenches of the Tribunal in favour of the taxpayer in the following decisions

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

ii). to "income" which falls within the definition of "total income". However, as these conditions are not satisfied the "total income". However, as these conditions are not satisfied the "total income". However, as these conditions are not satisfied the provisions of Sec. 74 are not applicable i provisions of Sec. 74 are not applicable in the present case. The reliance

M/S WF ASIAN SMALLER COMPANIES FUND LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX INTERNATIONAL TAXATION CIRCLE 4(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.459/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2013-14) M/S. Wf Asian Smaller बिधम/ Acit, Circle-4(3)(2) Companies Fund Ltd Room No. 1611, 16Th Vs. C/O Ankul Goyal, Azb & Floor, Air India Building, Partners A8, Sector-4, Nariman Point, Mumbai- Noida 201301. 400021. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacw5648R (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Deepak Chopra/Ankul Goyal Revenue By: Shri Soumedu Kumar Dash (Sr. Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 28/03/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23/06/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Ao Dated 19.01.2023 U/S 147 R.W.S 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) Pursuant To The Direction Issued By The Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel (Drp) For Ay. 2013-14. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Legal Issue Challenging The Action Of The Ao To Have Reopened The Original-Scrutiny-Assessment U/S 143(3) Of The Act, After Four (4) Years [From The End Of The Relevant Assessment Year] Without Satisfying The Additional Condition Precedent As Prescribed In The Proviso To Section 147(1) Of The Act. Since The Assessee Has Raised The Legal Issue Assailing The Jurisdiction Of Ao To Have Issued Notice U/S 148 Of The Act, Proposing Re-Opening Of The Original Assessment [Framed Under Scrutiny Under Section 143(3) Of The Act], We Will Adjudicate It First. For Appreciating The Legal Issue, Let Us

14), for excluding the equity shares and unit of equity oriented funds that they are not treated as capital asset. Secondly, any gains arising from transfer of Long term capital asset is treated as capital gain which is chargeable u/s. 45; thirdly, section 47 does not enlist any such exception that transfer of long term equity shares/funds are not treated

THE BOMBAY DYEING & MANUFACTURING COMPANY LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, C--2(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () - A.Y 2014-15 - A.Y 2015-16 Asst. Commissioner Of M/S Bombay Dyeing & Income-Tax 2(1)(1), Mumbai, Manufacturing Co. Ltd Room No.561, 5Th Floor, Vs. Neville House, Jn Herdia Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 001 Pan No. Aaact 2328 K Appellant Respondent - A.Y 2014-15 - A.Y 2015-16 M/S Bombay Dyeing & Dy. Commissioner Of Income- Manufacturing Co. Ltd Tax 2(1), Mumbai, Room Neville House, Jn Herdia No.561, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Vs Marg, Ballard Estate, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai- Mumbai-400 001 400 020 Pan No. Aaact 2328 K Appellant Respondent

ii) Whether the AO had correctly worked Whether the AO had correctly worked out the capital gains of the property on the out the capital gains of the property on the cost of land sold by the assessee as per the index relevant to financial year 1998-99 as cost of land sold by the assessee as per the index

THE BOMBAY DYEING & MANUFACTURING COMPANY LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, C--2(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () - A.Y 2014-15 - A.Y 2015-16 Asst. Commissioner Of M/S Bombay Dyeing & Income-Tax 2(1)(1), Mumbai, Manufacturing Co. Ltd Room No.561, 5Th Floor, Vs. Neville House, Jn Herdia Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 001 Pan No. Aaact 2328 K Appellant Respondent - A.Y 2014-15 - A.Y 2015-16 M/S Bombay Dyeing & Dy. Commissioner Of Income- Manufacturing Co. Ltd Tax 2(1), Mumbai, Room Neville House, Jn Herdia No.561, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Vs Marg, Ballard Estate, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai- Mumbai-400 001 400 020 Pan No. Aaact 2328 K Appellant Respondent

ii) Whether the AO had correctly worked Whether the AO had correctly worked out the capital gains of the property on the out the capital gains of the property on the cost of land sold by the assessee as per the index relevant to financial year 1998-99 as cost of land sold by the assessee as per the index

ACIT CIRCLE-2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S BOMBAY DYEING & MANUFACTURING CO. LTD. , MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () - A.Y 2014-15 - A.Y 2015-16 Asst. Commissioner Of M/S Bombay Dyeing & Income-Tax 2(1)(1), Mumbai, Manufacturing Co. Ltd Room No.561, 5Th Floor, Vs. Neville House, Jn Herdia Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 001 Pan No. Aaact 2328 K Appellant Respondent - A.Y 2014-15 - A.Y 2015-16 M/S Bombay Dyeing & Dy. Commissioner Of Income- Manufacturing Co. Ltd Tax 2(1), Mumbai, Room Neville House, Jn Herdia No.561, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Vs Marg, Ballard Estate, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai- Mumbai-400 001 400 020 Pan No. Aaact 2328 K Appellant Respondent

ii) Whether the AO had correctly worked Whether the AO had correctly worked out the capital gains of the property on the out the capital gains of the property on the cost of land sold by the assessee as per the index relevant to financial year 1998-99 as cost of land sold by the assessee as per the index

ACIT CIRCLE-2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S BOMBAY DYEING & MANUFACTURING CO. LTD. , MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () - A.Y 2014-15 - A.Y 2015-16 Asst. Commissioner Of M/S Bombay Dyeing & Income-Tax 2(1)(1), Mumbai, Manufacturing Co. Ltd Room No.561, 5Th Floor, Vs. Neville House, Jn Herdia Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 001 Pan No. Aaact 2328 K Appellant Respondent - A.Y 2014-15 - A.Y 2015-16 M/S Bombay Dyeing & Dy. Commissioner Of Income- Manufacturing Co. Ltd Tax 2(1), Mumbai, Room Neville House, Jn Herdia No.561, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Vs Marg, Ballard Estate, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai- Mumbai-400 001 400 020 Pan No. Aaact 2328 K Appellant Respondent

ii) Whether the AO had correctly worked Whether the AO had correctly worked out the capital gains of the property on the out the capital gains of the property on the cost of land sold by the assessee as per the index relevant to financial year 1998-99 as cost of land sold by the assessee as per the index

JT. CIT(OSD)CENTRAL CIRCLE-5(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S NITIN KUMAR DINDAYAL DIDWANIA, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Sr No Ita/ Co. No. Appellant/ Cross Respondent Objector 1 Jt. Commissioner Of Nitin Kumar 2093/Mum/2019 Income (Osd) Tax, Dindayal Didwania (A.Y. 2011-12) Central Circle 5(1), 172, Kshitij Room No. 1926, 19Th 2094/Mum/2019 Vs. Building, 47, (A.Y. 2012-13) Floor, Air India Napean Sea Road, Building, Mumbai-400 036 2095/Mum/2019 Nariman Point, (A.Y. 2014-15) Mumbai-400 021 5 Pan No.Aacpd7055J 6 Co No. 29/Mum/2021 (Arising Out Of Ita No.2092/Mum/2019 For A.Y. 2010-11) 7 Co No. 30/Mum/2021 Jt. Commissioner (Arising Out Of Ita Of Income (Osd) No.2093/Mum/2019 Nitin Kumar Tax, For A.Y. 2011-12) Dindayal Didwania 8 Co No. 32/Mum/2021 Central Circle (Arising Out Of Ita 172, Kshitij Building, Vs. 5(1), No.2094/Mum/2019 47, Napean Sea Room No. 1926, For A.Y. 2012-13) Road, Mumbai-400 19Th Floor, Air 9 Co No. 34/Mum/2021 036 India Building, (Arising Out Of Ita Nariman Point, No.2095/Mum/2019 Mumbai-400 021 For A.Y. 2014-15) 10 Co No. 38/Mum/2021 (Arising Out Of Ita No.2096/Mum/2019 For A.Y. 2015-16)

ii. Assessee has failed to prove the genuineness of the transactions of long-term capital gain. The brokers are identified namely Mr. Natwar & Mr. Girish Zaveri who have provided the accommodation entries in the form of Long Term Capital Gain to the assessee. iii. Statement made by the assessee is admissible evidence for making addition as it is backed

HAZEL MERCANTILE LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 5(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Sr No Ita/ Co. No. Appellant/ Cross Respondent Objector 1 Jt. Commissioner Of Nitin Kumar 2093/Mum/2019 Income (Osd) Tax, Dindayal Didwania (A.Y. 2011-12) Central Circle 5(1), 172, Kshitij Room No. 1926, 19Th 2094/Mum/2019 Vs. Building, 47, (A.Y. 2012-13) Floor, Air India Napean Sea Road, Building, Mumbai-400 036 2095/Mum/2019 Nariman Point, (A.Y. 2014-15) Mumbai-400 021 5 Pan No.Aacpd7055J 6 Co No. 29/Mum/2021 (Arising Out Of Ita No.2092/Mum/2019 For A.Y. 2010-11) 7 Co No. 30/Mum/2021 Jt. Commissioner (Arising Out Of Ita Of Income (Osd) No.2093/Mum/2019 Nitin Kumar Tax, For A.Y. 2011-12) Dindayal Didwania 8 Co No. 32/Mum/2021 Central Circle (Arising Out Of Ita 172, Kshitij Building, Vs. 5(1), No.2094/Mum/2019 47, Napean Sea Room No. 1926, For A.Y. 2012-13) Road, Mumbai-400 19Th Floor, Air 9 Co No. 34/Mum/2021 036 India Building, (Arising Out Of Ita Nariman Point, No.2095/Mum/2019 Mumbai-400 021 For A.Y. 2014-15) 10 Co No. 38/Mum/2021 (Arising Out Of Ita No.2096/Mum/2019 For A.Y. 2015-16)

ii. Assessee has failed to prove the genuineness of the transactions of long-term capital gain. The brokers are identified namely Mr. Natwar & Mr. Girish Zaveri who have provided the accommodation entries in the form of Long Term Capital Gain to the assessee. iii. Statement made by the assessee is admissible evidence for making addition as it is backed