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

1) of the Act, disagreed with the submissions of the assessee and held that the computation of the net short- term capital gains by the assessee is not in order. The AO further held that the IT Rules have clearly defined separate columns for set-off and carry forward of gains of having differential tax rates. Accordingly, the short-term

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

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

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

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

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

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

1,75,56,572/- In this regard, the provision u/s 70(2) of the IT Act is relevant and reproduced below:- "(2) Where the result of the computation made for any assessment year under sections 48 to 55 in respect of any short-term capital asset is a loss, the assessee shall be entitled to have the amount of such

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

1,362,792,200) transaction subject to STT (15%) (C) Net Short-term capital gain (15%) 304,40,46,083 45,66,06,913 (B-C) Short term capital loss carried Nil forward 7. Accordingly, the AO computed the net short-term capital gains amounting to INR 47,99,29,138, as compared to the net short-term capital gains

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

1) of the Act, disagreed with the\nsubmissions of the assessee and held that computation of the net short-\nterm capital gains by the assessee is not in order. The AO further held that\nthe IT Rules have clearly defined separate columns for set-off and carry\nforward of gains of having differential tax rates. Accordingly, the short-term\ncapital

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

1) of the Act, disagreed with the\nsubmissions of the assessee and held that computation of the net short-\nterm capital gains by the assessee is not in order. The AO further held that\nthe IT Rules have clearly defined separate columns for set-off and carry\nforward of gains of having differential tax rates. Accordingly, the short-term\ncapital

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

1) of the Act, disagreed with the\nsubmissions of the assessee and held that computation of the net short-\nterm capital gains by the assessee is not in order. The AO further held that\nITA No. 2072, 2040 & 2073/Mum/2025 (A.Y. 2022-23) 6\nthe IT Rules have clearly defined separate columns for set-off and carry\nforward of gains

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

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

1. Whether the asset involved is a capital asset and whether the income arising from the proceeds received in respect of exercise of options qualifies to 'be considered under the head Capital Gains? 2. Whether the provisions of section 160 (Representative Assessee) as well as provisions of section 164

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

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

1. Whether the asset involved is a capital asset and whether the income arising from the proceeds received in respect of exercise of options qualifies to 'be considered under the head Capital Gains? 2. Whether the provisions of section 160 (Representative Assessee) as well as provisions of section 164

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

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 ()

1,02,45,891/-, Short Term Capital Gain of Rs. 6,164 and Income from other sources of Rs. 9,38,459/- 2.1 The CPC on e-filing portal proposed adjustment under section

SIR RATAN TATA TRUST,MUMBAI SUBURBAN vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION)-2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in both AY 2014-15 and AY

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

gains of business, the provisions of clause (iii) of this proviso shall not apply unless the trust or institution maintains separate books of account in respect of such business. (emphasis supplied) 9. The contention of the revenue is that funds of the assessee Trust that were invested before 01.03.1983 in Tata Sons Ltd which is not a modes specified

SIR RATAN TATA TRUST,MUMBAI SUBURBAN vs. ADDITIONAL /JOINT/DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NFAC, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in both AY 2014-15 and AY

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

gains of business, the provisions of clause (iii) of this proviso shall not apply unless the trust or institution maintains separate books of account in respect of such business. (emphasis supplied) 9. The contention of the revenue is that funds of the assessee Trust that were invested before 01.03.1983 in Tata Sons Ltd which is not a modes specified

MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA EMPLOYEES STOCK OPTION TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 12(2), MUMBAI

In the result, ground no.4 is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Jm & Shri R.C.Sharma, Am आमकय अऩीर सिं./Ita No.2389/Mum/2015 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2010-2011) Mahindra & Mahindra Adcit, Range-12(2), Employees‟ Stock Option Mumbai-20 Trust, Gateway Building, Apollo Bunder, Mumbai- 400001 स्थामी रेखा सिं./ जीआइआय सिं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aahfm 9583 B (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. यनधावरयती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri H.P.Mahajani याजस्र् की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri N.P.Singh सुनर्ाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 04/08/2015 घोषणा की तायीख/Date Of Pronouncement 21/10/2015 आदेश / O R D E R Per R.C.Sharma, Am The Present Appeal Is Filed Against The Order Of Cit(A) -28, Mumbai, Dated 26-3-2015 For A.Y.2011-12. 2. During The Course Of Hearing The Assessee Has Filed Concise Grounds Of Appeal. These Have Been Considered By Us For The Adjudication Of This Appeal & Are Reproduced Hereunder :-

1. Whether the asset involved is a capital asset and whether the income arising from the proceeds received in respect of exercise of options qualifies to 'be considered under the head Capital Gains? 2. Whether the provisions of section 160 (Representative Assessee) as well as provisions of section 164