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

1) and (2) of section 50. Section 50A also deals with\nassessment of depreciable asset that too as short-term capital gains and it actually\nsupplements section 50. In our view, the purpose of section 50A is to enable the\nassessee to claim deduction of the written down value of the asset in respect of which\ndepreciation was claimed

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

1) and (2) of section 50. Section 50A also deals with assessment of depreciable asset that too as short-term capital gains and it actually supplements section 50. In our view, the purpose of section 50A is to enable the assessee to claim deduction of the written down value of the asset in respect of which depreciation was claimed

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)

section 70, I find that there is no prohibition nor the Act compels the assessee to first set off short term capital gain with STT against short term capital loss with STT and then allows set off against short term capital gain without STT. In absence of any specific mode of set off provided in the Act and in absence

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)

section 70, I find that there is no prohibition nor the Act compels the assessee to first set off short term capital gain with STT against short term capital loss with STT and then allows set off against short term capital gain without STT. In absence of any specific mode of set off provided in the Act and in absence

FRANK S INTERNATIONAL ITL LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT(IT), CIRCLE (2)(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the question of law referred to the Special Bench is answered in favour of the\nassessee

1) and (2) of section 50. Section\n50A also deals with assessment of depreciable asset that too as short-term capital gains\nand it actually supplements section 50. In our view, the purpose of section 50A is to enable\nthe assessee to claim deduction of the written down value of the asset in respect of which\ndepreciation was claimed

TATA SONS LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT 2, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

capital loss or not.\nThe Hon'ble High Court held that consequent to assessee's\ndefault in not paying the balance of money on allotment, its right\nin the shares stood extinguished on its forfeiture and the loss\nsuffered by the assessee, i.e., non-recovery of share application\nmoney is consequent to the forfeiture of its right in the shares

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 ()

1), where the statute itself has differentiated rates of tax on different nature/sources of income. Such is not the case in relevant capital gains section 45 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 9. In the case in hand, the Applicant has one species of "income" - capital gains, that too, "Long Term Capital Gains", being uniform across all transactions under

FIDELITY RUTLAND SQUARE TRUST II STRATEGIC ADVISERS EMERGING MARKETS FUND ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), MUMBAI

The appeals are partly allowed

201)\n(223,701,502)\n(9,77,33,796)\n174,64,01,537\n164,86,67,741\n5. 1. The underlying facts show that the assessee had short\nterm capital gains on STT paid shares, short term capital\nloss on STT paid shares and also short term capital gains\non non-STT paid shares and short term capital losses

FIDELITY RUTLAND SQUARE TRUST II STRATEGIC ADVISERS FID EMG MARKETS FUND ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION )2(3)(1), MUMBAI

201)\n(223,701,502)\n(9,77,33,796)\n174,64,01,537\n164,86,67,741\n\n5.1.\nThe underlying facts show that the assessee had short\nterm capital gains on STT paid shares, short term capital\nloss on STT paid shares and also short term capital gains\non non-STT paid shares and short term capital losses

INDIUM IV (MAURITIUS) HOLDINGS LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMM. OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) 2(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleindium Iv (Mauritius) Holdings Limited V. Dcit (International Transaction)-2(2)(1) Office 201, 2Nd Floor, Sterling Tower Room No. 1722, 17Th Floor Air India Building, Nariman Point 14 Poudriere Street, Port Louis Mumbai – 400 021 Mauritius Pan: Aacci4907P (Appellant) (Respondent)

201, 2nd Floor, Sterling Tower Room No. 1722, 17th Floor Air India Building, Nariman Point 14 Poudriere Street, Port Louis Mumbai – 400 021 Mauritius PAN: AACCI4907P (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Anish Thacker & Assessee Represented by : Shri Pranay Gandhi Department Represented by : Shri Pankaj Mehta Date of conclusion of Hearing : 08.09.2023 Date of Pronouncement

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)

1,49,431/- I have perused the assessment order and have considered submissions of the A/R. In the impugned order the A.O. has not given any reasons for first sitting off short term capital gain with STT against short term capital STT and then allow of set off of remaining loss of Rs.4,90,096/ against short term capital gain

SONIA PATHAK KHANNA,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-25(1)(2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am Income Tax Officer, Sonia Pathak Khanna, Ward 25(1)(2) Flat No.14, 5Th Floor, Room No. 204, 2Nd Floor, Kodinar, Model Town, Off Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To C- J.P. Road, Four Bungalows, 43 Vs. Andheri (W), Mumbai-400 G Block, Bandra Kurla 053 Complex, Bandra(E), Mumbai-051 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabpp6359C Assessee By : Shri K Gopal, Ar : Shri R.R. Makwana, Dr Revenue By Date Of Hearing: 13.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.07.2024

201, 2nd Floor, Blue Ridge Township, Hinjewadi, Pune and claimed the deduction thereof from capital gain based on letter of allotment dated 12/08/2017. 09. Capital gain computed by the assessee was sales consideration of Rs 57 lakhs, less indexed cost of acquisition of Rs 32,01663/-, resulting into capital gain of s 24,98,337/-. From this it claimed deduction

RAMESH JAISINGHANI,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

section 55(2) to see the legislative pattern following chart is drawn to see the taxability of capital gains arising on transfer of STT paid long term equity shares. 30 Ramesh Jaisinghani Transfer of STT paid Capital gain on transfer of STT paid long long term equity shares term equity during the period Listed shares Unlisted Unlisted shares shares

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, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2018-

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhailita No.1452/Mum/2023 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Assessment Year : 2018-19

section 143(3) of the Act, disagreed with the submissions of the assessee and held that perpetual bonds are in the nature of debt instruments with no maturity date. Only the issuing company can buy back the bonds from the investors. Therefore, it was held these bonds are perpetual in nature. Since in the case of perpetual bonds, the investor

BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-2(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2018-

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhailita No.1452/Mum/2023 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Assessment Year : 2018-19

section 143(3) of the Act, disagreed with the submissions of the assessee and held that perpetual bonds are in the nature of debt instruments with no maturity date. Only the issuing company can buy back the bonds from the investors. Therefore, it was held these bonds are perpetual in nature. Since in the case of perpetual bonds, the investor

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 147, of the Income- (Ahmedabad - Trib.) IN THE tax Act, 1961 - Capital gains - Income arising from ITAT AHMEDABAD BENCH 'B' transfer of long-term securities (Bogus transactions) - Pratik Suryakant Shah v. AY 2006-07 - Assesse purchased 3000 shares of Income-tax Officer, Ward- 10 company 'T' through a stock broker - These shares (3), Ahmedabad* OCTOBER 21, were transferred

RAJENDRA KUMAR MUNDRA (HUF),MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE (NFAC), DELHI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain& Shri Girish Agrawalrajendra Kumar Mundra Vs. Ito, Ward 24(3)(1) (Huf) Piramal Chamber C-28, Ameya Bldg, Behind Lalbaug, Mumbai – Ymca Dn Nagar Andheri (W) 400012. 400053. Pan/Gir No.Aadh6828J (Applicant) (Respondent)

section 147, of 260 (Ahmedabad - Trib.) the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Capital gains IN THE ITAT - Income arising from transfer of long- AHMEDABAD BENCH 'B' term securities (Bogus transactions) - Pratik Suryakant Shah v. AY 2006-07 - Assesse purchased 3000 Income-tax Officer, Ward- shares of company 'T' through a stock 10 (3), Ahmedabad* broker - These shares were transferred OCTOBER

JAIPRAKASH L. SINGH,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 31(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands\nallowed

201 (Mumbai) laid down the\nrole of tribunal with respect to section 150 vide PARA 8 as\nunder(Legal PB Pg. No. 19-23):-\n“The revenue's request for direction under section 150 was\nalso devoid of legally sustainable merits. Section 150\ndoes not enable or require an appellate authority to\ngive any directions for reopening of assessment