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

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 70(2

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

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. 14. We find that while deciding a similar issue, the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in iShares MSCI EM UCITS ETF USD ACC vs. DCIT, reported

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

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 ()

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 143(1)(a) dated 03/01/2020 stating that the return filed by assessee contains incorrect claims under Schedule VIA and Schedule Sl. The assessee in response filed objection dated 11/01/2020 against the proposed adjustment

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

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

Sections covered in this bracket are not concerned or prescribing any rate of tax on capital gain. This issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the coordinate benches in (1) JS Capital LLC v ACIT (International Taxation)[2024] 160 taxmann.com 286 (Mumbai - Trib.) and (2) iShares MSCI EM UCITS ETF V Deputy Commissioner

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-5(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. LARSEN AND TOUBRO LTD, MUMBAI

In the result the cross appeal filed by the revenue as well as\nassessee stands dismissed

2) r.w.s. 48, makes it crystal\nclear that for the purpose of computation of capital gains from slump sale,\nit is intended to deny indexation benefits in respect of cost of acquisition\nand improvement. In section 50B, there is no reference to clause (i) of\nsection 48 which deals with expenses wholly and exclusively in connection\nwith the transfer. Hence

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

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

NIK FAMILY TRUST,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- CIRCLE 23(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosainnik Family Trust Vs. Dcit, Circle – 23(1) C-7, Ishwar Niwas Sick Piramal Chamber. Nagar, Vp Raod, Girgaon. Pan/Gir No. Aadtn2244C (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Dharan Gandhi A/W Shri Ashutosh Patare Revenue By Shri Avinash Karpe, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 01.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 08.05.2025 आदेश / Order Per Sandeep Gosain, Jm: The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Challenging The Impugned Order 24.12.2024 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’), By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For The Assessment Year 2021-22. 2. The Only Effective Issue Raised In The Present Appeal Regarding Levying Of Surcharge. In This Regard It Is Submitted That Assessee Is A Discretionary Trust, Eligible To File Return In Itr-5, The Assessee Had Filed Its Return Of 2 Nik Family Trust, Mumbai

2 NIK Family Trust, Mumbai income for the year under consideration declaring income of Rs. 32,57,110/- consisting of income from other sources and capital gains. However, in the intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act, surcharge has been charged even though total income of the assessee did not exceed prescribed thresh hold limit of Rs. 50 lakhs

NITESH RAJHANS SINGH,MUMBAI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER -26(2)(3), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Ms Padmavathy S

2 Para 5 to 10 of the order as under: “5. Pursuant to information received from the DGIT (Investigation), Kolkata, after search carried out at the premises of penny stock operators, reassessment proceedings under section 147 of the Act were initiated in the case of the assessee and notice dated 17/10/2016 under section 148 of the Act was issued

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