ISHARES MSCI ALL COUNTRY ASIA EX JAPAN ETF,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (INT. TAX)-2(2)(2), MUMBAI

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

1) for A.Y 2002-03. Observing, that since the capital gains were\nnot taxable in India as per Article 13 of the Indian-Mauritius Tax Treaty,\nthe A.O being of the view that capital loss would also be exempted, and\ntherefore, the assessee would not be entitled to claim the set-off of the\nsame against the capital gains

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) for A.Y 2002-03. Observing, that since the capital gains were not taxable in India as per Article 13 of the Indian- Mauritius Tax Treaty, the A.O being of the view that capital loss would also be exempted, and therefore, the assessee would not be entitled to claim the set-off of the same against the capital gains

TATA COMMUNICATIONS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Arun Khodpiatata Communications Limited Pr. Cit, Videsh Sanchar Bhavan, Mumbai-1 Vs. M. G. Road, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 Pan/Gir No. Aaacv 2808 C (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri J. D. Mistri Respondent By : Shri Ritesh Misra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 25.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.09.2025 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey: The Present Appeal, At The Instance Of The Assessee, Assails Order Dated 21.03.2025, Passed U/S. 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ For Short), By Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (‘Ld. Pcit’ For Short), Pertaining To The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2018-19. 2. Though The Assessee Has Raised Multiple Grounds, Both On Jurisdictional Issues As Well As On Merits, However, There Is Consensus Between The Parties That The Appeal Can Be Decided On Merits, In Which Event, There Is No Need To Go Into Various Other Issues Raised In Appeal.

1) and sub section (2) of section 50 has limited application only in the context of mode of computation of capital gains contention of sections 48 and 49 of the Act and beyond that nothing should be imported to other sections of the Act. 33. Though most of the decisions have been rendered in the context of Section

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 sub section (2) of section 50\nhas limited application only in the context of mode of computation of capital gains\ncontention of sections 48 and 49 of the Act and beyond that nothing should be\nimported to other sections of the Act.\n-. \n33. Though most of the decisions have been rendered in the context of Section

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 sub section (2) of section 50 has limited application only in the context of mode of computation of capital gains contention of sections 48 and 49 of the Act and beyond that nothing should be imported to other sections of the Act. 33. Though most of the decisions have been rendered in the context of Section

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)

1,27,79,59,707 [Subject to STT and taxable as per section 115AD read with section 111A of the Act at the rate of 15%] Less. Brought Forward Short-Term Capital Loss (31,96,04,829) Net Short-Term Capital Gains

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)

1,27,79,59,707 [Subject to STT and taxable as per section 115AD read with section 111A of the Act at the rate of 15%] Less. Brought Forward Short-Term Capital Loss (31,96,04,829) Net Short-Term Capital Gains

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

1) of the\nAct, held that the assessee had opted for the benefit of India-Mauritius DTAA\nand at the same time the benefit of the Act. However, the assessee has a\nchoice to be governed either by the Act or by the provisions of the DTAA. The\nAO further held that for any receipt to be exempt under

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

1) of the\nAct, held that the assessee had opted for the benefit of India-Mauritius DTAA\nand at the same time the benefit of the Act. However, the assessee has a\nchoice to be governed either by the Act or by the provisions of the DTAA. The\nAO further held that for any receipt to be exempt under

ISHARES MSCI INDIA UCITS ETF ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION )-2(2)(2), MUMBAI

1) of the\nAct, held that the assessee had opted for the benefit of India-Mauritius DTAA\nand at the same time the benefit of the Act. However, the assessee has a\nchoice to be governed either by the Act or by the provisions of the DTAA. The\nAO further held that for any receipt to be exempt under

ISHARES CORE MSCI TOTAL INTERNATIONAL STOCK ETF (AS A SUCCESSOR TO ISHARES CORE TOTAL INTERNATIONAL STOCK MAURITIUS CO ),MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-2(2)(2), MUMBAI

1) of the\nAct, held that the assessee had opted for the benefit of India-Mauritius DTAA\nand at the same time the benefit of the Act. However, the assessee has a\nchoice to be governed either by the Act or by the provisions of the DTAA. The\nAO further held that for any receipt to be exempt under

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

1) of the\nAct, held that the assessee had opted for the benefit of India-Mauritius DTAA\nand at the same time the benefit of the Act. However, the assessee has a\nchoice to be governed either by the Act or by the provisions of the DTAA. The\nAO further held that for any receipt to be exempt under

ISHARES MSCI EM UCITS ETF USD DIST ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-2(2)(2), MUMBAI

1) of the\nAct, held that the assessee had opted for the benefit of India-Mauritius DTAA\nand at the same time the benefit of the Act. However, the assessee has a\nchoice to be governed either by the Act or by the provisions of the DTAA. The\nAO further held that for any receipt to be exempt under

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

1) of the\nAct, held that the assessee had opted for the benefit of India-Mauritius DTAA\nand at the same time the benefit of the Act. However, the assessee has a\nchoice to be governed either by the Act or by the provisions of the DTAA. The\nAO further held that for any receipt to be exempt under

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

1) of the\nAct, held that the assessee had opted for the benefit of India-Mauritius DTAA\nand at the same time the benefit of the Act. However, the assessee has a\nchoice to be governed either by the Act or by the provisions of the DTAA. The\nAO further held that for any receipt to be exempt under

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

1) of the\nAct, held that the assessee had opted for the benefit of India-Mauritius DTAA\nand at the same time the benefit of the Act. However, the assessee has a\nchoice to be governed either by the Act or by the provisions of the DTAA. The\nAO further held that for any receipt to be exempt under

ISHARES MSCI INDIA ETF(AS A SUCESSOR TO ISHARES INDIA INDEX MARUITIUS COMPANY),MUMBAI vs. DCIT (INT)-2(2)(2), MUMBAI

1) of the\nAct, held that the assessee had opted for the benefit of India-Mauritius DTAA\nand at the same time the benefit of the Act. However, the assessee has a\nchoice to be governed either by the Act or by the provisions of the DTAA. The\nAO further held that for any receipt to be exempt under

ISHARES MSCI INDIA UCITS ETF,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-2(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

31,763,535/– and has also short-term capital loss for the current year of ₹ 49,454,381/–. Assessee has short-term capital loss brought forward of ₹ 103,551,143 and long-term capital loss brought forward of ₹ 359,405,011/–. Assessee has made into adjustment of short-term capital loss of ₹ 49,454,381/– with a short-term capital

ISHARES MSCI EM IMI ESG SCREENED UCITS ETF,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-2(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

31,763,535/– and has also short-term capital loss for the current year of ₹ 49,454,381/–. Assessee has short-term capital loss brought forward of ₹ 103,551,143 and long-term capital loss brought forward of ₹ 359,405,011/–. Assessee has made into adjustment of short-term capital loss of ₹ 49,454,381/– with a short-term capital