ISHARES EMSC MAURITIUS CO ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION )-2(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

capital gain is ₹ 859,680 in the computation seat however the learned assessing officer has computed it at ₹ 791,221/–. Assessee has filed an application under section 154

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

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

capital gain is ₹ 859,680 in the computation seat however the learned assessing officer has computed it at ₹ 791,221/–. Assessee has filed an application under section 154

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

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

capital gain is ₹ 859,680 in the computation seat however the learned assessing officer has computed it at ₹ 791,221/–. Assessee has filed an application under section 154

J P TRUST,MUMBAI vs. DY COMM. OF INCOME TAX IT CIRCLE 32(1), MUMBAI

Accordingly the ground raised by the assessee in this regard is allowed

Bench: Narender Kumar Choudhry, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

capital gain taxable at normal rate, which is not permissible. Further, the issue is debatable and cannot be rectified u/s 154 of the IT Act as it is not apparent from record. In view of these facts and circumstances, the ground of appeal is fit to be dismissed.” 4. The ld. AR submitted that section

ITO 41(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. DEEPIKA ANIL AGARWAL, MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue stands\ndismissed

gain and to rebut that these are not in\nthe nature of accommodation entries.\niv. It is submitted that the learned Assessing Officer failed to collect and bring\non record the evidences from MrAnil B Agarwal which was later retracted\nback by him. If at all said evidences are collected, copies of same have not\nbeen provided to the respondent

UDAYAN GROVER,MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE(NFAC), DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleudayan Grover V. National Faceless Appeal Centre Panch Mahal Delhi Panch Sristhi Complex {Acit – 26(3), Bkc, Mumbai} Powai, Mumbai - 400072 Pan: Aclpg0572G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Vimal Punmiya Department Represented By : Ms. Kavitha Kaushik

Section 10(38), in a pre-planned manner to evade taxes. The AO extensively relied upon the search and survey operations conducted by the Investigation Wing of the Income Tax Department in Kolkata, Delhi, Mumbai and Ahmedabad on penny stocks, which sets out the modus operandi adopted in the business of providing entries of bogus LTCG. However, the reliance placed

INDIA ACORN FUND LTD ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-2(2)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Smt Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

capital gain We, therefore, overturn the impugned order and allow this ground of appeal." (Emphasized by us) 9. In the case of JP Morgan Fund (supra), the Tribunal had dealt with similar controversy. The Co-ordinate Bench after placing reliance on the decision of Special Bench in the case of Montgomery Emerging Markets Fund [(2006)100 ITD 217/Mum/SB] dismissed Revenue

ADITYA BIRLA SUN LIFE AMC LIMITED,MAHARASHTRA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- CIRCLE 6(1)(1), MAHARASHTRA

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar1. Ita No. 6663/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) 2. Ita No. 6701/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) 3. Ita No. 6702/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2022-23) & 4. Ita No. 6703/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2023-24) Aditya Birla Sun Life Dcitcircle-6(1)(1), Amc Limited, Room No. 502, 5Th 17Th Floor, One World Vs. Floor, Aayakar Centre Tower-1, Jupiter Bhavan, M. K. Mill Compount, 841, Road, Churchgate, Senapati Bapat Marg, Mumbai-400 020 Delisle Road, S.O. Mumbai-400 013 Pan/Gir No. Aaacb6134D (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ronak Doshi, Shri Shrey Agrawal & Shri Aadish Jain, Ld. Ars Revenue By Shri Surendra Mohan, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 27.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 06.02.2026

gains of business or profession”, but does not operate as a bar against claiming deduction under Chapter VI-A, particularly under section 80G of the Act. 32. The Co-ordinate Bench in the said decision has further held that section 80G itself contains specific exclusions in respect of certain CSR-related payments under sub-clauses (iiihk) and (iiihl) and that

PRIYA KAPIL TODARWAL ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD, 30(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Smt. Renu Jauhri ()

Capital Gains in the intimation passed under section 143(1) or rectification orders passed under section 154 of the Income

EMERGING MARKETS INDEX NON LENDABLE FUND,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-2(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shrisandeep Singh Karhail, Jm A.Y.2021 – 22 Emerging Markets Index The Deputy Commissioner Of Non-Lendable Fund Income Tax (International C/O Ernst & Young Llp Taxation) – Circle –2 (2) (1) 17Th Floor 1722, 17T H Floor, Vs. The Ruby Air India Building, 29, Senapati Bapat Marg Nariman Point, Dadar (West) Mumbai – 21 Mumbai – 28 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan Aaaae3262D Assessee By Shri Anish Thacker & Pranay Gandhi Revenue By Shri Anil Sant Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax Date Of Hearing 7 May 2024 Date Of Pronouncement 5 August 2024

154,207/–, passed in pursuance of direction of The Dispute Resolution Panel – 1, Mumbai (the learned DRP) dated 12/9/2023. ITA No.4589/M UM/2023 A Y 2021 – 22 Emerging markets index non-lendable fund versus Deputy Commissioner of income tax (International taxation) Circle – 2 2. Assessee is aggrieved and has raised 12 grounds of appeal including ground number 2 and 3 challenging

ANAND SWARUP MEHTA ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(INTERNATIONAL TAX)-3(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is accordingly allowed for statistical purposes\nin the above terms

154-463 of\npaperbook). the Hon'ble Delhi Tribunal held that the word 'property' used in this\nsection is of the widest amplitude which means that any right which a person can\nbe called to hold in a capital asset would be included in the word 'property' used\nand included in the definition of 'capital asset' in section

ADITYA BIRLA SUN LIFE AMC LIMITED,MAHARASHTRA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 6(1)(1), MAHARASHTRA

154" ], "issues": "The key issues involved are the allowability of provision for leave encashment, deduction under section 80G for CSR expenditure, correct computation of TDS credit, taxability of short-term capital gains

VALUABLE TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAC (APPEALS)-11 PUNE , PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh () Assessment Year: 2020-21 Valuable Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Cit(A)-11, Dcit Central Circle 1 Plot No. 53/1 Media Info Park, Road, Thane, Ashok It Park 6Th Floor, No.7, Midc, Near Akruti Trade Vs. Ward No. -16, Wagle Industrial Centre, Andheri (East), Estate, Thane (West)-400604. Mumbai-400093. Pan No. Aaccv 2732 P Appellant Respondent

section 72(1) of the Income Tax Act. Income Tax Act. 2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the assessee company ed, facts of the case are that the assessee company ed, facts of the case are that the assessee company was engaged in providing software services etc. For the year under was engaged in providing software services

CHITRA AVDHESH MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. ITO 33 (1) (3), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands\ndismissed

section 10(38) of the Act; in the meantime, the\noperator register the prices of the stock and gradually rise its\nprise many times, offered 500 to 1000 times; that this is done\nthrough low-volume transaction indulged in by the dummies of\nthe operator at a predetermined price; that when the price\nreaches the desired level the beneficiary

GOVIND CORPORATION ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 8(1), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands\ndismissed

section 10(38) of the Act; in the meantime, the\noperator register the prices of the stock and gradually rise its\nprise many times, offered 500 to 1000 times; that this is done\nthrough low-volume transaction indulged in by the dummies of\nthe operator at a predetermined price; that when the price\nreaches the desired level the beneficiary

BRAJ KISHORE SINGH,ANDHERI EAST vs. ASSESSING OFFICER INT. TAX WARD 4(2)(1), INTERNATIONAL TAX, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is accordingly partly allowed for statistical

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanbraj Kishore Singh Vs. Assessing Officer 604, Lantana, Nahar Amrit Internatinal Tax Ward Shakti, Chandivali, 4(2)91) Maharashtra -400 072. Room No. 632, Kautilya Bhavan, Pan: Bqips8474H C-41 To C-43, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051

154-463 of paperbook). the Hon'ble Delhi Tribunal held that the word 'property' used in this section is of the widest amplitude which means that any right which a person can be called to hold in a capital asset would be included in the word 'property' used and included in the definition of 'capital asset' in section

ADITYA BIRLA SUN LIFE AMC LIMITED,MAHARASHTRA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-CIRCLE 6(1)(1), MAHARASHTRA

capital gains amounting to Rs. 13,46,813/-.\nGROUND NO. II: SHORT GRANT OF CREDIT OF TAX DEDUCTED AT\nSOURCE (“TDS”) AMOUNTING TO RS. 15,76,346/-\n1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, CIT(A)\nerred in upholding the action of the AO in granting total credit

ADITYA BIRLA SUN LIFE AMC LIMITED,MAHARASHTRA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- CIRCLE 6 (1)(1), MAHARASHTRA

capital gains amounting to Rs. 13,46,813/-.\nGROUND NO. II: SHORT GRANT OF CREDIT OF TAX DEDUCTED AT\nSOURCE (“TDS”) AMOUNTING TO RS. 15,76,346/-\n1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, CIT(A)\nerred in upholding the action of the AO in granting total credit