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 90(2) of the Act, each provision of\nthe Act should be considered separately and therefore for determining 'total\nincome', the income under head "Capital gains has to be first determined\nconsidering the provisions of the Act or the treaty, whichever is more beneficial\nand once it is determined that the grandfathered gains are not chargeable to\ntax

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 90(2) of the Act, each provision of\nthe Act should be considered separately and therefore for determining 'total\nincome', the income under head "Capital gains has to be first determined\nconsidering the provisions of the Act or the treaty, whichever is more beneficial\nand once it is determined that the grandfathered gains are not chargeable to\ntax

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

section 90(2) of the Act, each provision of\nthe Act should be considered separately and therefore for determining 'total\nincome', the income under head "Capital gains has to be first determined\nconsidering the provisions of the Act or the treaty, whichever is more beneficial\nand once it is determined that the grandfathered gains are not chargeable to\ntax

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

section 90(2) of the Act, each provision of\nthe Act should be considered separately and therefore for determining 'total\nincome', the income under head "Capital gains has to be first determined\nconsidering the provisions of the Act or the treaty, whichever is more beneficial\nand once it is determined that the grandfathered gains are not chargeable to\ntax

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

section 90(2) of the Act, each provision of\nthe Act should be considered separately and therefore for determining 'total\nincome', the income under head "Capital gains has to be first determined\nconsidering the provisions of the Act or the treaty, whichever is more beneficial\nand once it is determined that the grandfathered gains are not chargeable to\ntax

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

section 90(2) of the Act, each provision of\nthe Act should be considered separately and therefore for determining 'total\nincome', the income under head "Capital gains has to be first determined\nconsidering the provisions of the Act or the treaty, whichever is more beneficial\nand once it is determined that the grandfathered gains are not chargeable to\ntax

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

section 90(2) of the Act, each provision of\nthe Act should be considered separately and therefore for determining 'total\nincome', the income under head "Capital gains has to be first determined\nconsidering the provisions of the Act or the treaty, whichever is more beneficial\nand once it is determined that the grandfathered gains are not chargeable to\ntax

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

section 90(2) of the Act, each provision of\nthe Act should be considered separately and therefore for determining 'total\nincome', the income under head "Capital gains has to be first determined\nconsidering the provisions of the Act or the treaty, whichever is more beneficial\nand once it is determined that the grandfathered gains are not chargeable to\ntax

TMF HOLDING LTD.,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT -1, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Bletmf Holdings Ltd., V. Pr.Cit – 1 {Formerly Known As Tata Motors Finance Ltd.,} 3Rd Floor, Room No. 330 10Th Floor, 106 A & B Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Maker Chamber-Iii Mumbai - 400020 Nariman Point, Mumbai Pan: Aacct4644A (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Nikhil Tiwari Assessee By : Department By : Shri S.N. Kabra

gain earned by the Assessee is in the nature of the capital receipt and the same should be excluded while computing the book profit under section 11 5JB of the Act. 56. Reliance is placed on following decisions wherein it has been held that where a particular receipt is not in the nature of 'income', it cannot also be considered

M/S WF ASIAN SMALLER COMPANIES FUND LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX INTERNATIONAL TAXATION CIRCLE 4(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.459/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2013-14) M/S. Wf Asian Smaller बिधम/ Acit, Circle-4(3)(2) Companies Fund Ltd Room No. 1611, 16Th Vs. C/O Ankul Goyal, Azb & Floor, Air India Building, Partners A8, Sector-4, Nariman Point, Mumbai- Noida 201301. 400021. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacw5648R (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Deepak Chopra/Ankul Goyal Revenue By: Shri Soumedu Kumar Dash (Sr. Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 28/03/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23/06/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Ao Dated 19.01.2023 U/S 147 R.W.S 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) Pursuant To The Direction Issued By The Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel (Drp) For Ay. 2013-14. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Legal Issue Challenging The Action Of The Ao To Have Reopened The Original-Scrutiny-Assessment U/S 143(3) Of The Act, After Four (4) Years [From The End Of The Relevant Assessment Year] Without Satisfying The Additional Condition Precedent As Prescribed In The Proviso To Section 147(1) Of The Act. Since The Assessee Has Raised The Legal Issue Assailing The Jurisdiction Of Ao To Have Issued Notice U/S 148 Of The Act, Proposing Re-Opening Of The Original Assessment [Framed Under Scrutiny Under Section 143(3) Of The Act], We Will Adjudicate It First. For Appreciating The Legal Issue, Let Us

433 (Delhi) and in appeal the Supreme Court of India in CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. [2010] 187 Taxman 312/320 ITR 561 had held that re- opening is impermissible on 'change of opinion' and in that context had drawn distinction between disclosure/declaration of 'material fact' by an assessee and legal effect thereof when

NUTECH ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-10(3)(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the appellant is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am)

section 50 are not applicable held by Ld. AO and argued that in the impugned case, only long term capital gain is to be levied as claimed by appellant company. The Ld. AR of the appellant filed a paper book on 28.5.2024 and also a fact sheet as a synopsis which is reproduced below :- “1. The Assessee company was engaged

DCIT 8(2), MUMBAI vs. MONSANTO INDIA LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, that of the Revenue is dismissed

section 145A of the Act. (Assessment Year : 2007-08) Grounds of Revenue’s Appeal:- 1. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in restricting the disallowance of RsJ,00,44,000/- made u/s.14A of the Act r.w. Rule 8D to Rs.18,58,789/- without appreciating that in the case

MONSANTO INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 8(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, that of the Revenue is dismissed

section 145A of the Act. (Assessment Year : 2007-08) Grounds of Revenue’s Appeal:- 1. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in restricting the disallowance of RsJ,00,44,000/- made u/s.14A of the Act r.w. Rule 8D to Rs.18,58,789/- without appreciating that in the case

ISC SPECIALITY CHEMICALS LLP ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 19(1)(5), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

capital asset or intangible assets or share or shares not charged under section 45 by virtue of conditions laid down in the said proviso shall be deemed to be the profits and gains chargeable to tax of the successor limited liability partnership or the shareholder of the predecessor company, as the case may be, for the previous year in which

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.

Section 70 of the Act does\nnot provide any hierarchy for set-off of losses, the short-term capital loss\narising from sale of shares subjected to STT can be first set-off against the\nshort-term capital gains arising from sale of securities not subjected to\nSTT instead of short-term capital gains arising from sale of shares\nsubjected

NITUL B SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ITO 19(1)(1), MUMBAI

The appeal stand allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A. No.5756/Mum/2012 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Nitul B. Shah Income Tax Officer-19(1)(1) बनाम/ 101, Kusum Kunj, 1St Floor 3Rdfloor, Piramal Chambers 9Th& 10Th Road, Khar(W) Mumbai Vs. Mumbai-400 052 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Ataps-0054-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

capital gains earned by the assessee during impugned AY upon sale of immoveable property situated at Flat No.41, Kahan Nagar Building, Kahan Nagar CHS Limited, NC Kelkar Road, Dadar, Mumbai – 28 admeasuring 433 Square Feets. 2.2 The facts on record reveal that the assessee had sold an immoveable property for Rs.36.56 Lacs vide agreement dated 29/07/2008. The said property

SARAH FAISAL HAWA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 17(3), MUMBAI

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajendra (Am) & Shri Sandeep Gosain (Jm) "ी राजे"", लेखा सद"य, एवं "ी संदीप गोसा", "या"यक सद"य, के सम" । {Appeals Against Order U/S. 271(1)(C)} आयकर अपील सं.I.T.A. No. 4749/Mum/2013 "नधा"रण वष"(Assessment Year 2005-06)

capital gain was in respect of only shares of 9 companies. (d) Most of the transactions were delivery based. (e) There was no borrowing. (f) There was huge dividend income. (g) Magnitude of transaction was not of much relevance. (h) Scrips of assessee were not held as stock-in-trade. 5.4 The decision of Ld. CIT(A) was not accepted

SARAH FAISAL HAWA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 17(3), MUMBAI

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajendra (Am) & Shri Sandeep Gosain (Jm) "ी राजे"", लेखा सद"य, एवं "ी संदीप गोसा", "या"यक सद"य, के सम" । {Appeals Against Order U/S. 271(1)(C)} आयकर अपील सं.I.T.A. No. 4749/Mum/2013 "नधा"रण वष"(Assessment Year 2005-06)

capital gain was in respect of only shares of 9 companies. (d) Most of the transactions were delivery based. (e) There was no borrowing. (f) There was huge dividend income. (g) Magnitude of transaction was not of much relevance. (h) Scrips of assessee were not held as stock-in-trade. 5.4 The decision of Ld. CIT(A) was not accepted