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

10. failed to appreciate that as per section 90(2) of the Act, each provision of the Act should be considered separately and therefore for determining 'total income', the income under head "Capital gains" has to be first determined considering the provisions of the Act or the treaty, whichever is more beneficial and once it is determined that the grandfathered

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 ()

capital gains of ₹106,35,11,223/- under section 10(38) of the Act. under section 10(38) of the Act. The Assessing Officer, however, was of Officer, however, was of the view that by virtue of section 44 of the the view that by virtue of section 44 of the Act, which is a non obstante provision, the computation

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 ()

capital gains of ₹106,35,11,223/- under section 10(38) of the Act. under section 10(38) of the Act. The Assessing Officer, however, was of Officer, however, was of the view that by virtue of section 44 of the the view that by virtue of section 44 of the Act, which is a non obstante provision, the computation

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 ()

capital gains of ₹106,35,11,223/- under section 10(38) of the Act. under section 10(38) of the Act. The Assessing Officer, however, was of Officer, however, was of the view that by virtue of section 44 of the the view that by virtue of section 44 of the Act, which is a non obstante provision, the computation

DCIT CEN 5 3, 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 ()

capital gains of ₹106,35,11,223/- under section 10(38) of the Act. under section 10(38) of the Act. The Assessing Officer, however, was of Officer, however, was of the view that by virtue of section 44 of the the view that by virtue of section 44 of the Act, which is a non obstante provision, the computation

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

capital in nature after completion of project when revenue had already been recognized from the project?” 2. The assessee before us also filed additional ground which reads as under: “Additional Ground No. III: Allowability of maintenance expenses of Rs. 92.32.199/- On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the maintenance expenditure

ACIT 421 MUMBAI, MUMBAI CITY vs. SAMIR NARAIN BHOJWANI, MUMBAI

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

capital in\nnature after completion of project when revenue had already been recognized\nfrom the project?\"\nThe assessee before us also filed additional ground which reads as under:\nAdditional Ground No. III: Allowability of maintenance expenses of Rs.\n92.32.199/-\nOn the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the maintenance\nexpenditure

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)

37,630 8. Erred in levying interest under section 234B of the Act amounting to INR 231,937,630, Levy of interest under section 234C of the Act-Rs. 13,330 9. Erred in levying interest under section 234C of the Act amounting to INR 13,330, Initiating penalty proceedings under section 270A of the Act. 10. Erred in initiating

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)

37,630 8. Erred in levying interest under section 234B of the Act amounting to INR 231,937,630, Levy of interest under section 234C of the Act-Rs. 13,330 9. Erred in levying interest under section 234C of the Act amounting to INR 13,330, Initiating penalty proceedings under section 270A of the Act. 10. Erred in initiating

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

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

37 A.Y. 2013-14 M/s. WF Asian Smaller Companies long term capital gains. The long term capital gains of the current year has been claimed exempt u/s 10(38) of the Act instead of being set off against the brought forward loss. 3. It is seen that first of all the brought forward long term capital loss of Rs.1

DCIT 4(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE TRANSPORT AND TRAVELS P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman: A.Y : 2013-14 Asst. Commissioner Of Income Vs. M/S. Reliance Transport & Tax – 4(3)(1), Travels Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai (Appellant) 6Th Floor, Nagin Mahal, 82, Veer Nariman Road, Churchgate, Mumbai 400 020. Pan : Aaacr2380M (Respondent)

37,25,000/- on which it had earned some capital gains. On the said capital gains the assessee had also claimed that it was entitled for exemption under Section 54E of the Act. Admittedly, the asset was purchased in the year 1972 and sold sometime in the year 1989. Thus, the asset was almost 17 years old. Going

DCITCC 3(2) CEN RG 3, MUMBAI vs. HRISHIKESH D. PAI, MUMBAI

In the result , the appeal of the Revenue in ITA no

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.2766/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2012-13) बिाम/ Dcit, Cc 3(2) Cen Rg 3 Shri Hrishikesh D. Pai, R.No. 1913, 19Th Floor, C/O M/S. Pregnancy Air India Building, Advice & Services, V. Nariman Point, 304, Pearl Centre, Mumbai S.B. Marg, Dadar, Mumbai 400028 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aabpp2139C (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri. Manoj Kumar Singh, Dr Assessee By : Shri. Vijay Mehta सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 23.08.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement :26.09.2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Revenue, Being Ita No. 2766/Mum/2017, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 05.12.2016 Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year 2012-13, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From Assessment Order Dated 30.03.2015 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act”) For Ay 2012-13. I.T.A. No.2766/Mum/2017

37,25,000/- on which it had earned some capital gains. On the said capital gains the assessee had also claimed that it was entitled for exemption under Section 54E of the Income Tax Act. Admittedly, the asset was purchased in the year 1972 and sold sometime in the year 1989. Thus, the asset is almost 17 years old. Going

CYFAST ENTERPRISES P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 10(3), MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year:2011-12 Cyfast Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Dcit, Afl House, Circle-10(3), बनाम/ Lok Bharati Complex, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Marol Maroshi Road, M.K. Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400059 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaacu4945K "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Nitesh Joshi & Shri Sunil Jhunjhunwala राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By Shri Anandi Verma-Cit-Dr

capital gain from the transfer of assets of the undertaking as one unit, it can be seen from the above Table B that aggregate value of all assets have been fixed at `105 as against the book value of `10. This gives the figure of capital gain at `95 (`105 – 10). If we accept the contention of the assessee that

TMF HOLDING LTD.,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT -1, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Bletmf Holdings Ltd., V. Pr.Cit – 1 {Formerly Known As Tata Motors Finance Ltd.,} 3Rd Floor, Room No. 330 10Th Floor, 106 A & B Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Maker Chamber-Iii Mumbai - 400020 Nariman Point, Mumbai Pan: Aacct4644A (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Nikhil Tiwari Assessee By : Department By : Shri S.N. Kabra

37. In fact, with the same Finance Act, section 47(iv) was inserted and thereby it is clear that intention is to grant exemption for sale of undertaking to wholly owned subsidiary on slump sale basis. 38. There is no sub-clause under section 2(24) which specifically includes capital gains computed under section 50B of the Act. The same

ITO 25(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. MEHUL J DHABALIA, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Taneja

37,444/- made by the AO, on account of capital gains on sale of land. Accordingly, ground no. 7 raised by the appellant is hereby accepted”. 7. Before us, Ld. DR submitted that the exemption u/s 54EC would be available only on actual investment in the bond and not on deemed amount determined under the deeming provisions of section

ITO 25(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. JAGDISH C. DHABALIA, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Taneja

37,444/- made by the AO, on account of capital gains on sale of land. Accordingly, ground no. 7 raised by the appellant is hereby accepted”. 7. Before us, Ld. DR submitted that the exemption u/s 54EC would be available only on actual investment in the bond and not on deemed amount determined under the deeming provisions of section