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

6. Without prejudice to the above, erred in not setting- off the short-term capital gains arising from sale of share not subjected to STT against brought forward unabsorbed short-term capital loss subjected to STT, contrary to the provisions of section 74 of the Act. Grounds of Appeal Nos. 8 - 12: Failure to allow set-off of brought forward

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)

6. Erred in granting credit for taxes deducted at source only to the extent of INR 9,44,18,740 as against INR 9,47,66,743 as claimed by the Appellant in the return of income. 7. Erred in levying interest under section 234C of the Act amounting to INR 43,100. Initiating penalty proceedings under section 270A

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)

6. Erred in granting credit for taxes deducted at source only to the extent of INR 9,44,18,740 as against INR 9,47,66,743 as claimed by the Appellant in the return of income. 7. Erred in levying interest under section 234C of the Act amounting to INR 43,100. Initiating penalty proceedings under section 270A

ISHARES CORE MSCI EMERGING MARKETS ETF (AS A SUCESSOR TO ISHARES CORE EMERGING MARKETS MAURITIUS COMPANY),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 statistical\npurposes

Capital Gains' is determined\nas per sections 45 to 55A of the Act whilst sections 111A and 115AD only\nprovide for determination of tax in certain cases and therefore, gains arising\non transactions subjected to STT and those not subjected to STT are no\ndifferent and satisfy the 'similar computation' condition specified in section

ISHARES INDIA 50 ETF (AS A SUCCESSOR TO ISHARES INDIA MAURITIUS CO ),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 statistical\npurposes

gains u/s\n111A amounting to Rs.88,08,601 twice and taxed at 15% with surcharge and\ncess in the computation sheet.\n9. Without prejudice to above, erred in not setting off the net long term capital\ngains chargeable to tax against brought forward long term capital loss in the\ncomputation sheet as done so in the impugned order.\n10. Without

ISHARES MSCI ALL COUNTRY ASIA EX JAPAN ETF(AS A SUCCESSOR TO ISHARES MSCI ALL COUNTRY ASIA EX JAPAN MAURITIUS CO),MUMBAI vs. DCIT (INT)-2(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical\npurposes

capital losses\nadopted by the Appellant and thereby, taxing the gross short-term capital\ngains in respect of transactions on the sale of shares not chargeable to\nSecurities Transaction Tax ('STT\").\n3. failed to appreciate that income under the head 'Capital Gains' is determined\nas per sections 45 to 55A of the Act whilst sections 111A and 115AD only\nprovide

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

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical\npurposes

section 270A of the Act alleging\nmisreporting of income by the Appellant;”\n60. Ground no.1 is general in nature. Therefore, the same needs no specific\nadjudication.\n61. The issue arising in grounds no.2 to 6, raised in assessee's appeal,\npertains to the manner of set off of short-term capital loss, which was incurred\nby the assessee from

ISHARES CORE MSCI EM IMI UCITS ETF,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (INT)-2(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical\npurposes

gains u/s\n111A amounting to Rs.88,08,601 twice and taxed at 15% with surcharge and\ncess in the computation sheet.\n9. Without prejudice to above, erred in not setting off the net long term capital\ngains chargeable to tax against brought forward long term capital loss in the\ncomputation sheet as done so in the impugned order.\n10. Without

ISHARES MSCI EMERGING MARKETS ETF (AS A SUCCESSOR TO ISHARES EMERGING MARKETS INDEX MAURITIUS CO ),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 statistical\npurposes

Capital losses adopted\nby the Appellant\n2. erred in rejecting the hierarchy of set-off of short-term capital losses\nadopted by the Appellant and thereby, taxing the gross short-term capital\ngains in respect of transactions on the sale of shares not chargeable to\nSecurities Transaction Tax ('STT\"): \n3. failed to appreciate that income under the head 'Capital Gains

MORGAN STANLEY MAURITIUS COMPANY LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-CIRCLE 3(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2020-21 Morgan Stanley Mauritius Company Dy. Cit (International Taxation) – Ltd., Circle 3(2)(2), Vs. C/O S R B C & Associates Llp, 14Th 16Th Floor, Room No. 1615, Air India Floor, The Ruby, 29, Senapati Bapat Building Nariman Point, Marg, Dadar (West), Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400028. Pan No. Aadcm 5927 G Appellant Respondent

6: Initiation of penalty proceedings under section 270A of the Act On the facts and circumstances of the case, the le On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned AO erred in arned AO erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 270A of the Act for under initiating penalty proceedings under section 270A of the Act for 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

section 270A of the\nAct alleging under reporting of income by the Appellant.”\n4. Ground No.1 to 6:\nThe relevant facts in brief are that the Assessee, a trust\norganized in the United States of America, is registered with the\nSecurities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) as a Foreign\nPortfolio Investor. The Assessee makes portfolio investments in\nIndian securities

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

section 270A of the Act\nalleging under reporting of income by the Appellant.”\n4\n\nITA No. 2125, 2126, 2127 & 2155/Mum/2025\n Assessment Year 2022-2023\n\n3.\nGround No.1 to 6:\nThe relevant facts in brief are that the Assessee, a trust\norganized in the United States of America, is registered with the\nSecurities and Exchange Board of India

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

gains chargeable to tax against brought forward\nlong term capital loss in the computation sheet;\n12. Without prejudice to the above, erred in computing the income\ntaxable at special rate at Rs 5,692,636,750 as against Rs.\n2,563,142,330 determined in the impugned order respectively and\nconsequently, computing higher tax liability;\n13. erred in short grant

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

gains chargeable to tax against brought forward\nlong term capital loss in the computation sheet;\n12. Without prejudice to the above, erred in computing the income\ntaxable at special rate at Rs 5,692,636,750 as against Rs.\n2,563,142,330 determined in the impugned order respectively and\nconsequently, computing higher tax liability;\n13. erred in short grant

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

6\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 gain was computed by first setting off 15% loss against 15% gains,\nas follows: -\nParticulars\nAmount (INR)\n(Taxable @ 15%)\nAmount (INR)\n(Taxable @ 30%)\nShort-term capital gains

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 ()

270A of the Act since the Appellant has made all disclosures in the income tax return, supported by legal arguments and judicial precedents at the time of assessment. 3. Levy of tax under section 115JB of the Act (Minimum Alternate Tax ('MAT') provision) – On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO has erred

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

capital gains arising from sale transactions subjected to STT. 4. erred in not following the binding decisions of the jurisdictional Tribunal and rejecting the set-off merely because the Department has preferred an appeal before the jurisdictional High Court against one of the orders of the jurisdictional Tribunal. Levy of interest under Section 234C Levy of interest under section 234C

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)

6 …………. xx xx On perusal of the provision of 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

AAWAGAMAN MERCANTILE LLP ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD, 1(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singhshri Sandeep Singh Karhailaawagaman Mercantile Llp, 204, Anand Estate, Arthur Road 189, Mumbai, Jacob Circle S.O. Mumbai - 400011 ……………. Appellant Maharashtra Pan: Abbfa0328F V/S Ito, Ward – 1(1), Aayakar Bhawan, Kolkata ……………. Respondent P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata. Assessee By : Ms. Dinkle Hariya Revenue By : Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Sr.Dr

6,35,357 was shown as short-term capital gain and tax was calculated @15% instead of the actual tax calculation of @30% being the said short-term capital gains arrived on account of the sale of liquid bonds. The assessee further admitted that by oversight it had not added the STT paid of INR 1,84,773, which