ISHARES CORE MSCI TOTAL INTERNATIONAL STOCK ETF (AS A SUCCESSOR TO ISHARE CORE TAOTAL INTERNATIONAL STOCK MAURITIUS COMPANY ),MUMBAI vs. DY CIT (INT. TAX)-2(2)(1), 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

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

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

54, 54F etc., the capital asset would remain a long ITA Nos. 890 1348/Mum/2023 & C.O. 71/Mum/2023 Reliance Power Ltd. term capital asset and gain arising on its transfer would be regarded as long term capital gain. However, the AO disregarded such submission and treated the gain on sale of helicopter as short term capital gain for all purposes including

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 143(2), the Assessing Officer called for various details, including the computation of capital gains offered by the assessee. In response, the assessee filed detailed replies and supporting documents on 10 July 2021; 4 February 2022; and 26 March 2022, elaborating the grounds of his claim and the computation issues arising under the Act. After considering the submissions

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 Tata Communications Limited vs. Pr. CIT its return of income on 29.11.2018, declaring income of Rs.901,66,54,850/-. Since in the year under dispute, the assessee had entered into international transactions with its Associated Enterprises (‘AE’ for short), the Assessing Officer (‘A.O.’ for short) made a reference to Transfer Pricing Officer (‘TPO’ for short) for determining

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)

54,878 [Offered to tax as STCG subject to STT and taxable as per section 115AD read with section 111A of the Act at the rate of 15%] 46. However, the Assessing Officer and DRP did not accept the Assessee’s treatment and recomputed the assessable capital gain as under : Short-term capital gains/ (loss) Taxable at 15% Taxable

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)

54,878 [Offered to tax as STCG subject to STT and taxable as per section 115AD read with section 111A of the Act at the rate of 15%] 46. However, the Assessing Officer and DRP did not accept the Assessee’s treatment and recomputed the assessable capital gain as under : Short-term capital gains/ (loss) Taxable at 15% Taxable

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 234B of the Act, which is consequential\nin nature. Therefore, the same needs no separate adjudication.\n66.\nGround no.15, raised in assessee's appeal, pertains to the initiation of\npenalty proceedings under section 270A of the Act, which is premature in\nnature. Therefore, the said ground is dismissed.\n43\nITAs

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 270A of the Act, which is premature in\nnature. Therefore, the said ground is dismissed.\n67. In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical\npurposes.\n42\nITAs No. 2085, 2134, 2147, 2148, 2149, 2150, 2151, 2152, 2153, 2154/Mum/2025 43\nITA No. 2150/Mum/2025\nIShare MSCI Emerging Markets ETF – A.Y. 2022-23\n68. In this appeal

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

2, where the\ncapital asset is an asset forming part of a block of assets in respect of which\ndepreciation has been allowed under this Act or under the Indian Income-\ntax Act, 1922 (11 of 1922), the provisions of sections 48 and 49 shall be\nsubject to the following modifications :—\n(1) where the full value of the consideration

TARUN KUMAR RATAN SINGH RATHI,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 32(1), MUMBAI

capital gains made by him for the purpose of\npurchasing and/or acquiring the aforesaid\nassets. We find therefore that on this ground also, the assessee is\nliable to succeed. The appeals are, accordingly, allowed and the\njudgment of the High Court is set aside..\n15. Without prejudice to the above, the appellant submits that as\nper section 54 (2

FAROOQ ABDULLA MERCHANT,MUMBAI vs. ITO 23 (1)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, Ground No. V raised by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon'Blefarooq Abdulla Merchant V. Income Tax Officer- Ward – 23(1)(4) Matru Mandir, Tardev Road A-1401, Poseidon Tower Mumbai – 400 007 Versova, Yari Road Above Indian Bank, Versova Andheri (W), Mumbai - 400061 Pan: Ahupm7426K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Vimal Punamiya Department Represented By : Smt. Vranda U. Matkarni

54 of the Income tax Act, 1961 states subject to the provision of sub-section(2) where in the case of an assessee the capital gain

THE BOMBAY DYEING & MANUFACTURING COMPANY LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, C--2(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () - A.Y 2014-15 - A.Y 2015-16 Asst. Commissioner Of M/S Bombay Dyeing & Income-Tax 2(1)(1), Mumbai, Manufacturing Co. Ltd Room No.561, 5Th Floor, Vs. Neville House, Jn Herdia Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 001 Pan No. Aaact 2328 K Appellant Respondent - A.Y 2014-15 - A.Y 2015-16 M/S Bombay Dyeing & Dy. Commissioner Of Income- Manufacturing Co. Ltd Tax 2(1), Mumbai, Room Neville House, Jn Herdia No.561, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Vs Marg, Ballard Estate, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai- Mumbai-400 001 400 020 Pan No. Aaact 2328 K Appellant Respondent

capital gains under section 45(2). We find that the Ld.CIT(A) has followed gains under section 45(2). We find that the Ld.CIT(A) has followed gains under section 45(2). We find that the Ld.CIT(A) has followed the binding precedent on the issue in dispute in the case of the binding precedent on the issue in dispute

THE BOMBAY DYEING & MANUFACTURING COMPANY LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, C--2(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () - A.Y 2014-15 - A.Y 2015-16 Asst. Commissioner Of M/S Bombay Dyeing & Income-Tax 2(1)(1), Mumbai, Manufacturing Co. Ltd Room No.561, 5Th Floor, Vs. Neville House, Jn Herdia Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 001 Pan No. Aaact 2328 K Appellant Respondent - A.Y 2014-15 - A.Y 2015-16 M/S Bombay Dyeing & Dy. Commissioner Of Income- Manufacturing Co. Ltd Tax 2(1), Mumbai, Room Neville House, Jn Herdia No.561, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Vs Marg, Ballard Estate, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai- Mumbai-400 001 400 020 Pan No. Aaact 2328 K Appellant Respondent

capital gains under section 45(2). We find that the Ld.CIT(A) has followed gains under section 45(2). We find that the Ld.CIT(A) has followed gains under section 45(2). We find that the Ld.CIT(A) has followed the binding precedent on the issue in dispute in the case of the binding precedent on the issue in dispute

ACIT CIRCLE-2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S BOMBAY DYEING & MANUFACTURING CO. LTD. , MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () - A.Y 2014-15 - A.Y 2015-16 Asst. Commissioner Of M/S Bombay Dyeing & Income-Tax 2(1)(1), Mumbai, Manufacturing Co. Ltd Room No.561, 5Th Floor, Vs. Neville House, Jn Herdia Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 001 Pan No. Aaact 2328 K Appellant Respondent - A.Y 2014-15 - A.Y 2015-16 M/S Bombay Dyeing & Dy. Commissioner Of Income- Manufacturing Co. Ltd Tax 2(1), Mumbai, Room Neville House, Jn Herdia No.561, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Vs Marg, Ballard Estate, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai- Mumbai-400 001 400 020 Pan No. Aaact 2328 K Appellant Respondent

capital gains under section 45(2). We find that the Ld.CIT(A) has followed gains under section 45(2). We find that the Ld.CIT(A) has followed gains under section 45(2). We find that the Ld.CIT(A) has followed the binding precedent on the issue in dispute in the case of the binding precedent on the issue in dispute

ACIT CIRCLE-2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S BOMBAY DYEING & MANUFACTURING CO. LTD. , MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () - A.Y 2014-15 - A.Y 2015-16 Asst. Commissioner Of M/S Bombay Dyeing & Income-Tax 2(1)(1), Mumbai, Manufacturing Co. Ltd Room No.561, 5Th Floor, Vs. Neville House, Jn Herdia Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 001 Pan No. Aaact 2328 K Appellant Respondent - A.Y 2014-15 - A.Y 2015-16 M/S Bombay Dyeing & Dy. Commissioner Of Income- Manufacturing Co. Ltd Tax 2(1), Mumbai, Room Neville House, Jn Herdia No.561, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Vs Marg, Ballard Estate, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai- Mumbai-400 001 400 020 Pan No. Aaact 2328 K Appellant Respondent

capital gains under section 45(2). We find that the Ld.CIT(A) has followed gains under section 45(2). We find that the Ld.CIT(A) has followed gains under section 45(2). We find that the Ld.CIT(A) has followed the binding precedent on the issue in dispute in the case of the binding precedent on the issue in dispute

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

2) of section 50B makes it abundantly clear that the undertaking or division as a whole is considered as one capital asset and the net worth of this capital asset is considered as cost of acquisition and cost of improvement for the purposes of sections 48 and 49. Therefore, it becomes patent that section 50B is a code in itself

RANI JAGDISH SAHDEVAN,MUMBAI vs. ITO 25 (3)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid findings

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail & Shri Gagan Goyal

Capital Gains Scheme on 13.08.2013 i.e. after the due date of filing of return of income under section 139(1) of the Act and claim exemption under section 54 of the Act, whereas as per provisions of section 54(2

RAJAN GUNBA TELANG,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT - 21 , MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Pradhan

2) of the Act. He observed, though, the assessee had not invested the capital gain in purchasing a new residential house before the due date of filing of return of income under section 139(1) of the Act, he has not deposited the unutilized capital gain in capital gain account scheme. Thus, he observed, the conditions of section 54