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

gain from any other capital asset. Section 70(2) of the Act does not make any further classification between the transactions where STT was paid and the transactions where STT was not paid. The emphasis of the AO on the term "similar computation" also only refers to the computation as provided under sections

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)

164,86,67,741 5.1. The underlying facts show that the assessee had short term capital gains on STT paid shares, short term capital loss on STT paid shares and also short term capital gains on non-STT paid shares and short term capital losses on non-STT paid shares. 6. From the chart exhibited hereinabove, it can be seen

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)

164,86,67,741 5.1. The underlying facts show that the assessee had short term capital gains on STT paid shares, short term capital loss on STT paid shares and also short term capital gains on non-STT paid shares and short term capital losses on non-STT paid shares. 6. From the chart exhibited hereinabove, it can be seen

PANKAJ ENTERPRISES,MUMBAI vs. JT CIT RG 25(3), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue for AY 2012

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Pankaj Enterprises, Jt. Cit Range-25(3), C/O Shankarlal Jain & Assoicates Pritashkar Bhavan, Bkc, 12, Engineer Building, 265, Vs. Bandra (E), Princess Street, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400 002. Pan No. Aacfp 3044 K Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax- M/S Pankaj Enterprises, 25(3), Plot No. 1, Behind Ice Factory, Room No. 601, C-10, 6Th Floor, Vs. Saki Vihar Road, Chandivali, Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Bandra Mumbai-400072. Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aacfp 3044 K Appellant Respondent Co No. 313/Mum/2018 (Ita No. 4875/Mum/2017) Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Co No. 312/Mum/2018 (Ita No. 4876/Mum/2017) Assessment Year: 2012-13

capital gain is liable to be taxed in assessment year 2009 gain is liable to be taxed in assessment year 2009-10. According to 10. According to the Assessing Officer transfer of development right took place under transfer of development right took place under section 2 (47) of the Act Act on the date of development agreement date of development

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 25(3), MUMBAI vs. PANKAJ ENTERPRISES, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue for AY 2012

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Pankaj Enterprises, Jt. Cit Range-25(3), C/O Shankarlal Jain & Assoicates Pritashkar Bhavan, Bkc, 12, Engineer Building, 265, Vs. Bandra (E), Princess Street, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400 002. Pan No. Aacfp 3044 K Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax- M/S Pankaj Enterprises, 25(3), Plot No. 1, Behind Ice Factory, Room No. 601, C-10, 6Th Floor, Vs. Saki Vihar Road, Chandivali, Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Bandra Mumbai-400072. Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aacfp 3044 K Appellant Respondent Co No. 313/Mum/2018 (Ita No. 4875/Mum/2017) Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Co No. 312/Mum/2018 (Ita No. 4876/Mum/2017) Assessment Year: 2012-13

capital gain is liable to be taxed in assessment year 2009 gain is liable to be taxed in assessment year 2009-10. According to 10. According to the Assessing Officer transfer of development right took place under transfer of development right took place under section 2 (47) of the Act Act on the date of development agreement date of development

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 25(3), MUMBAI vs. PANKAJ ENTERPRISES, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue for AY 2012

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Pankaj Enterprises, Jt. Cit Range-25(3), C/O Shankarlal Jain & Assoicates Pritashkar Bhavan, Bkc, 12, Engineer Building, 265, Vs. Bandra (E), Princess Street, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400 002. Pan No. Aacfp 3044 K Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax- M/S Pankaj Enterprises, 25(3), Plot No. 1, Behind Ice Factory, Room No. 601, C-10, 6Th Floor, Vs. Saki Vihar Road, Chandivali, Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Bandra Mumbai-400072. Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aacfp 3044 K Appellant Respondent Co No. 313/Mum/2018 (Ita No. 4875/Mum/2017) Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Co No. 312/Mum/2018 (Ita No. 4876/Mum/2017) Assessment Year: 2012-13

capital gain is liable to be taxed in assessment year 2009 gain is liable to be taxed in assessment year 2009-10. According to 10. According to the Assessing Officer transfer of development right took place under transfer of development right took place under section 2 (47) of the Act Act on the date of development agreement date of development

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

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 ()

section 90(2), the Ld. A.O. has granted the beneficial option to the applicant at the preference of the Applicant itself. 11. Treaty Provisions are applicable in re/ qua "Income" and not "sources". In this case, there has been one single species of Income, "capital gains" that too, Long Term Capital Gains. 7. To sum up, as per facts

EMERGING MARKETS INDEX NON-LENDABLE FUND ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION )-2(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for\nstatistical purposes

gain from any other capital asset. Section\n70(2) of the Act does not make any further classification between the\ntransactions where STT was paid and the transactions where STT was not\npaid. The emphasis of the AO on the term \"similar computation\" also only\nrefers to the computation as provided under sections 48 to 55 of the Act,\nand

EMERGING MARKETS EQUITY INDEX MASTER FUND ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY CIT (INT. TAX)-2(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for\nstatistical purposes

gain from any other capital asset. Section\n70(2) of the Act does not make any further classification between the\ntransactions where STT was paid and the transactions where STT was not\npaid. The emphasis of the AO on the term \"similar computation\" also only\nrefers to the computation as provided under sections 48 to 55 of the Act,\nand

I SHARES ESG AWARE MSCI EM ETF ,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\nstatistical purposes

gain from any other capital asset. Section\n70(2) of the Act does not make any further classification between the\ntransactions where STT was paid and the transactions where STT was not\npaid. The emphasis of the AO on the term "similar computation" also only\nrefers to the computation as provided under sections 48 to 55 of the Act,\nand

TEACHER RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF TEXAS,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION )-4(1)(2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Girish Agrawalteacher Retirement System Of Texas, C/O Ernst & Young Llp, 17Th Floor, The Ruby, 29, Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar (West), ............... Appellant Mumbai - 400028 Pan: Aaatt9387R V/S Acit (It) – 4(1)(2), Kautilya Bhavan, ……………… Respondent G-Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai - 400051 Assessee By : Shri Anish Thacker Shri Pranay Gandhi Revenue By : Shri Soumendu K. Dash, Sr.Dr

164 taxmann.com 56 (Mum.-Trib.), following the decision of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in CIT vs. Rungamatee Trexim (P.) Ltd. [IT Appeal number 812 of 2008, dated 19.12.2008], allowed the set off of short-term capital loss (on which STT was paid) against the short-term capital gains (on which STT was not paid). The relevant findings

SCHWAB FUNDAMENTAL EMERGING MARKETS EQUITY ETY ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-4(2)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA (Accountant Member)

164,86,67,741 5.1. The underlying facts show that the assessee had short term capital gains on STT paid shares, short term capital loss on STT paid shares and also short term capital gains on non-STT paid shares and short term capital losses on non-STT paid shares. 6. From the chart exhibited hereinabove, it can be seen

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

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

section 147, of the\nIncome-tax Act, 1961 Capital gains - Income\narising from transfer of long-term securities\n(Bogus transactions) Assessment year 2006-\n07 Assesse purchased 3000 shares of\ncompany 'T' through a stock broker These\nshares were transferred to assesses demat\naccount - However, said stock broker submitted\nbefore authorities that he was providing\naccommodation entries for taking profit

ACIT 17(1) , MUMBAI vs. MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA EMPLOYEES STOCK OPTION TRUST, MUMBAI

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

Capital Gains? 2. Whether the provisions of section 160 (Representative Assessee) as well as provisions of section 164(1} (Charge

ACIT-17(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA EMPLOYEES STOCK OPTION TRUST., MUMBAI

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

Capital Gains? 2. Whether the provisions of section 160 (Representative Assessee) as well as provisions of section 164(1} (Charge

EASTSPRING INVESTMENTS INDIA EQUITY OPEN LIMITED,MAURITIUS vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX - INTERNATIONAL TAXATION CIRCLE 2(2)(1) - MUMBAI, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S\Nshri Sandeep Singh Karhail\Nita No.1219/Mum/2025\N(Assessment Year :2022-2023)\Neastspring Investments India Equity\Nopen Ltd.,\N3Rd Floor, 355 Nex Rue Du Savoir,\Ncybercity Ebene, Mauritius\Npan - Aadcp4503H\Nappellant\Nv/S\Ndcit (It) – 2(2)(1),\Nroom No.606, 6Th Floor,\Nkautilya Bhavan, C-41 To C-43,\Ng-Block, Bandra Kurla Complex,\Nbandra (East), Mumbai\Nmaharashtra - 400051\Nrespondent\Nassessee By : Shri Ketan Ved\Nms. Riya Shah\Nrevenue By : Shri Satya Pal Kumar, Cit(Dr)\Ndate Of Hearing – 05/05/2025\Ndate Of Order – 09/05/2025\Norder\Nper Sandeep Singh Karhail, J.M.\Nthe Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Final Assessment\Norder Dated 27.12.2024, Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W. Section 144C(3)\Nof The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act\"), Pursuant To The Directions Dated\N30.11.2024 Issued By The Learned Dispute Resolution Panel-1, Mumbai,\N(“Learned Drp”) Under Section 144C(5) Of The Act, For The Assessment Year\N2022-23.\N2. In This Appeal, The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds:\N“Re.: Disallowance Of Set-Off Of Brought Forward Short-Term Capital Losses\Nincurred On Equity Transactions That Were Subjected To Securities\Ntransaction Tax (Stt) Against Short Term Capital Gains On Sale Of Right\Nforms Not Subject To Stt\N1.

gain from any other capital asset. Section\n70(2) of the Act does not make any further classification between the\ntransactions where STT was paid and the transactions where STT was not\npaid. The emphasis of the AO on the term \"similar computation\" also only\nrefers to the computation as provided under Sections

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 68 of the Act to tax the full amount recd. On sale of shares as alleged unexplained cash credit as alleged income earned from undisclosed sources where AO has concluded the same in his order, if views of AO is summarized then crux of the same is astronomical long term capital gains earned by assessee defies common sense

DY CIT CC 2 (2), MUMBAI vs. SMT. KALPANA MUKESH RUIA, MUMBAI

The appeal stands dismissed

section 143(3). That reliance is placed on the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Continental Warehousing Corporation (Nhava Sheva) Ltd., 374 ITR 645 and other Judgements of Hon. Bombay High Court and Hon. Delhi and Bombay ITAT. 20. As regards addition u/s. 68 of the Act for long term capital gain learned