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

capital gains. As a result, Grounds no.1 to 4 raised in assessee’s appeal are allowed. 35. The issue arising in Ground no.5, raised in assessee’s appeal, pertains to the levy of interest under section 234C of the Act, which is consequential in nature. Therefore, the same need no separate adjudication. 36. The issue arising in Ground no.6, raised

RELIANCE POWER LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 15(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, ground of appeal raised by assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Shri Omkareshwar Chidara(Physical Hearing) Dcit – 15(3)(1), Mumbai Reliance Power Limited Room No. 460, 4Th Floor, H-Block, 1St Floor, Dhirubhai Ambani Vs Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Knowledge City, Koperkhairane, Mumbai – 400020] Navi Mumbai-400710 [Pan: Aaacr2365L] Appellant / Revenue Respondent / Assessee Reliance Power Limited Dcit – 15(3)(1), Mumbai Room No. 460, 4Th Floor, Aayakar Reliance Centre, Ground Floor, 19 Vs Walchand Hirachand Marg, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Ballard Estate, Mumbai – 400001. Mumbai – 400020] [Pan: Aaacr2365L] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

2. The CIT(A) erred in confirming the conclusion reached by the Learned Assessing Officer that, as per provisions of section 50 any capital gain arising out of sale of depreciable assets is in the nature of short term capital gain and accordingly the same is subject to tax at the rate applicable to short term capital gain. Your appellant

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)

gains to tax at the rate of ten per cent, provided that STT was paid and subject to the benefit of grandfathering for appreciation up to 31 January 2018. 35. Section 55(2)(ac), as introduced by the Finance Act, 2018, provided a mechanism to determine cost for assets covered under section 112A namely, listed equity shares on which

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.

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 54E but the principle laid down

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

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 54E but the principle laid down

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

35,98,346/- to tax the gain arising out of the sale of assets forming part of\nblock of assets to be taxed at normal rate of tax. The contention of the assessee\nbefore us is that the gain on transfer of assets offered to tax under section 50 of the\nAct are subject to tax rates mentioned under section

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 111A of the Act at the rate of 15%] 35. However, the Assessing Officer and DRP did not accept the Assessee’s treatment and recomputed the assessable capital gains as under: Short-term capital gains/ (loss) Taxable at 15% Taxable at 30% (STT paid) (Non-STT paid) Short-Term Capital Gains 88,21,26,634 2

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 111A of the Act at the rate of 15%] 35. However, the Assessing Officer and DRP did not accept the Assessee’s treatment and recomputed the assessable capital gains as under: Short-term capital gains/ (loss) Taxable at 15% Taxable at 30% (STT paid) (Non-STT paid) Short-Term Capital Gains 88,21,26,634 2

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

section 144C(5) of the Act\nissued by the Hon'ble DRP - I, Mumbai dated 4 December 2024 on the following\ngrounds, each of which is without prejudice to and independent of the others:\n\nOn the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO/\nHon'ble DRP:\n\nGeneral\n\n1. Erred

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

Capital losses adopted\nby the Appellant\n\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

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

2. Further, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Credit\nSuisse (Singapore) Co. (Mauritius) Ltd. In ITA No. 1107 and 1108/Mum/2022,\nupheld the theory of the segregation of capital gain for drawing DTAA to the\nextent of more beneficial to the assessee. The relevant finding of the Tribunal\nis reproduced as 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

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

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

35,11,480\ninstead of the returned income of Rs 96,69,39,710.\nMerits of the case:\nRejecting the hierarchy of set-off of Short-Term 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

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

section 143(3) read with section\n144C(13) of the Act dated 15 January 2025, Issued by the Deputy\nCommissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation) - 2(2)(2), Mumbai ['the\nlearned AO'] in pursuance of the directions under section 144C(5) of the Act\nissued by the Hon'ble DRP 1, Mumbai dated 5 December 2024 on the\nfollowing grounds

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

35,11,480\ninstead of the returned income of Rs 96,69,39,710.\nMerits of the case:\nRejecting the hierarchy of set-off of Short-Term 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

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\n70(2

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 70, then there must be set off first then only\nthe remaining loss will be carried forward. The AO held that if the income itself\nis not part of total income, then the application of treaty benefits does not\narise. Accordingly, the AO concluded that the loss can be set off against the\ngains which have been claimed

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

2. Further, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Credit\nSuisse (Singapore) Co. (Mauritius) Ltd. In ITA No. 1107 and 1108/Mum/2022,\nupheld the theory of the segregation of capital gain for drawing DTAA to the\nextent of more beneficial to the assessee. The relevant finding of the Tribunal\nis reproduced as under

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

35,10,563/- as short-term capital gain on sale of depreciable business assets. The\nld. AO then passed the final assessment order dated 12.11.2021, u/s.143(3) r.w.s.\n144C(3) of the Act, confirming the income determined in the draft assessment order.\n4. The assessee then preferred an appeal before the first appellate authority, which upheld\nthe addition made