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)

capital gains arising on shares offered under OFS, the cost of shares of Polycab India Ltd should be considered to be Fair Market Value ('FMV) of shares as on 31 January 2018in light of provision of Explanation a(i) Section 55(2)(ac) Without prejudice, provisions of section 55(2)(aa

VANGUARD EMERGING MARKETS STOCK INDEX FUND A SERIES OF VIEF,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-4(3)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

Section 55(2)(aa) of the Act deals with a scenario where the person becomes entitled to subscribe to additional financial asset and if such entitlement is in relation to any right to renounce the entitlement, the cost is taken to be NIL. From the above provisions, it is discernible that right to subscribe to any financial asset is distinct

VANGUARD EMERGING MARKETS STOCK INDEX FUND A SERIES OF vs. PLC ,MUMBAIVS.ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX INTERNATIONAL TAXATION -4(3)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

Section 55(2)(aa) of the Act deals with a scenario where the person becomes entitled to subscribe to additional financial asset and if such entitlement is in relation to any right to renounce the entitlement, the cost is taken to be NIL. From the above provisions, it is discernible that right to subscribe to any financial asset is distinct

JM FINANCIAL LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 4(3), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

section 55(2)(aa) of the Income-tax t. Act, 1961 be accepted and that the long-term capital loss be accepted at Rs.54,90,36,870/- and the short-term capital loss be accepted at Rs.465,44,19,508/-. 5 ITAs 3925 & 3987/Mum/2015 Ground IV: Set-off of Long-Term Capital Loss on sale of shares of JM Financial

DCIT 4(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. J.M. FINANCIAL LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

section 55(2)(aa) of the Income-tax t. Act, 1961 be accepted and that the long-term capital loss be accepted at Rs.54,90,36,870/- and the short-term capital loss be accepted at Rs.465,44,19,508/-. 5 ITAs 3925 & 3987/Mum/2015 Ground IV: Set-off of Long-Term Capital Loss on sale of shares of JM Financial

VFTC INSTITUTIONAL TOTAL INTERNATIONAL STOCK MARKET INDEX TRUST II,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-4(3)(1), MUMBAI

Section 55(2)(aa) of the Act deals with a scenario where the\nperson becomes entitled to subscribe to additional financial asset and if such\nentitlement is in relation to any right to renounce the entitlement, the cost is\ntaken to be NIL.\n\nFrom the above provisions, it is discernible that right to subscribe to any financial\nasset

VANGUARD FUNDS PUBLIC LIMITED COMPANY VANG FTSE EMERGING MKTS UCITS ETF,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-4(3)(1), MUMBAI

Section 55(2)(aa) of the Act deals with a scenario where the\nperson becomes entitled to subscribe to additional financial asset and if such\nentitlement is in relation to any right to renounce the entitlement, the cost is\ntaken to be NIL.\nFrom the above provisions, it is discernible that right to subscribe to any financial\nasset is distinct

VANGUARD TOTAL WORLD STOCK INDEX FUND ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-4(3)(1), MUMBAI

Section 55(2)(aa) of the Act deals with a scenario where the\nperson becomes entitled to subscribe to additional financial asset and if such\nentitlement is in relation to any right to renounce the entitlement, the cost is\ntaken to be NIL.\nFrom the above provisions, it is discernible that right to subscribe to any financial\nasset is distinct

VANGUARD TOTAL INTERNATIONAL STOCK INDEX FUND ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-4(3)(1), MUMBAI

Section 55(2)(aa) of the Act deals with a scenario where the\nperson becomes entitled to subscribe to additional financial asset and if such\nentitlement is in relation to any right to renounce the entitlement, the cost is\ntaken to be NIL.\nFrom the above provisions, it is discernible that right to subscribe to any financial\nasset is distinct

AJAY JAISINGHANI ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: SHRI. NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA (Accountant Member), MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (Judicial Member)

capital gains: Without prejudice, provisions of section 55(2)(aa)(ia) of the Act cannot be imported into the provisions

THE ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-15(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. GAURI TANDON, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon'Bleacit – 15(1)(1) V. Gauri Tandon Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Tandon Beach House Mumbai - 400020 Plot No. 35(Pt), Aajad Road Juhu Koliwada, Santacruz (W) Mumbai - 400049 Pan: Aaapb4013C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Vijay Mehta Department Represented By : Shri Smiti Samant

capital gain, the cost of acquisition of the bonus shares was taken as ‘Nil’ by application of the provisions of section 55(2)(aa

FORT CANNING CREDIT INVESTMENTS PTE. LTD.,SINGAPORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) - 2(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2022-23 Fort Canning Investments Assistant Commissioner Of Pte. Ltd. Income-Tax (International 260 Orchard Road, #14-02 Taxation) - 2(3)(1) Vs. The Heeren, Singapore, Mumbai Singapore – 238855 (Pan: Aaccf9284G) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2022-23 Fort Canning Credit Assistant Commissioner Of Investments Pte. Ltd. Income-Tax (International 260 Orchard Road #14-02 Taxation) - 2(3)(1) Vs. The Heeren, Singapore, Mumbai Singapore – 238855 (Pan: Aadcf7866R) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Dhanesh Bafna, Ms. Priyanka Agarwala, Ms.Hirali Desai, Ms. Nidhi Agarwal & Shri Yogesh Malpani, Cas Revenue : Shri Satya Pal Kumar, Cit Dr & Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 29.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.01.2026 Fort Canning Investments Pte. Ltd. & Fort Canning Credit Investments Pte. Ltd. Ay 2022-23

section 55(2)(aa) of the Act, wherein the right entitlement is considered distinct as compared to the shares in the company. Further, it took note of para- 30 of OECD Model Tax Convention on Income and on Capital, 2017, wherein it has been brought that gains

FORT CANNING INVESTMENTS PTE. LTD. ,SINGAPORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) - 2(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2022-23 Fort Canning Investments Assistant Commissioner Of Pte. Ltd. Income-Tax (International 260 Orchard Road, #14-02 Taxation) - 2(3)(1) Vs. The Heeren, Singapore, Mumbai Singapore – 238855 (Pan: Aaccf9284G) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2022-23 Fort Canning Credit Assistant Commissioner Of Investments Pte. Ltd. Income-Tax (International 260 Orchard Road #14-02 Taxation) - 2(3)(1) Vs. The Heeren, Singapore, Mumbai Singapore – 238855 (Pan: Aadcf7866R) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Dhanesh Bafna, Ms. Priyanka Agarwala, Ms.Hirali Desai, Ms. Nidhi Agarwal & Shri Yogesh Malpani, Cas Revenue : Shri Satya Pal Kumar, Cit Dr & Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 29.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.01.2026 Fort Canning Investments Pte. Ltd. & Fort Canning Credit Investments Pte. Ltd. Ay 2022-23

section 55(2)(aa) of the Act, wherein the right entitlement is considered distinct as compared to the shares in the company. Further, it took note of para- 30 of OECD Model Tax Convention on Income and on Capital, 2017, wherein it has been brought that gains

PREETI CHIRANIA,MUMBAI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD - 28(2)(4), NAVI MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Ms. Padmavathy Svs. Ito, Ward – 28(2)(4) Preeti Chirania 309, 3Rd Floor, Tower No. Flat No.3, 1St Floor, 6, Vashi Rly Stn., Mangesh Santa Durga Commercial Complex, Chs, Sector – 17, Nerul Vashi Navi Mumbai – 400 (E), Navi Mumbai – 400 703. 706. Pan/Gir No. Akbpc0636M (Applicant) (Respondent)

gain for the assessee related to penny stock transaction. In our considered view, the entire addition made by the Ld.AO is quashed. Further, the Ld.AR placed that the CIT(A) had made the enhancement of Rs.62,03,535 under section 68 of the Act. The addition made by the AO is Rs.20,18,348/-. The Ld.AR only challenged the addition

GIRDHARI JAISINGHANI,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Hon’Ble

capital gains; Without prejudice, provisions of section 55(2)(aa)(iiia) of the Act cannot be imported into the provisions

ANJU CHIRANIA,MUMBAI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 4(1)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Judicialmember & Shri Girish Agrawalanju Chirania, Vs. Ito, Ward –4(1)(3), 301, Sona Chambers, Room No. 637, 507/509, Jss Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Chira Bazar, Marine Lines, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 002. Mumbai-400020. Pan/Gir No. Afcpc9073Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

55 ELT 43 (1991) that the decision of Hon‟ble Jurisdictional High Court would have higher precedence value than the decision of Hon‟ble Non-Jurisdictional High Court on the Tribunal. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court emphasised therein that the orders of the Tribunal should be followed by the authorities falling within its jurisdiction so that judicial discipline would

IDEA CELLULAR LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-3(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘I’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

AA) of the act, 1961. Mere sanction of scheme is by High Court of demerger under the companies act 1956 is by itself not sufficient. 74. Hon Bombay High court in Casby CFS P Ltd in re [ 2015] 56 taxmann.com 263 (Bombay)/[2015] 231 Taxman 89 (Bom.) has also held asunder: - Vodafone Idea Limited (Formerly Idea Cellular Limited) 39. According

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-14(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. IDEA CELLULAR LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

AA) of the act, 1961. Mere sanction of scheme is by High Court of demerger under the companies act 1956 is by itself not sufficient. 74. Hon Bombay High court in Casby CFS P Ltd in re [ 2015] 56 taxmann.com 263 (Bombay)/[2015] 231 Taxman 89 (Bom.) has also held asunder: - Vodafone Idea Limited (Formerly Idea Cellular Limited) 39. According

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD)-I/C DCIT CIRCLE 8(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD, MUMBAI

section 139(5). Discovery of the omission or wrong statement made by the assessee itself is not sufficient to file the revised return within ambit of section 139(5)\"\n38.3. Going by the principles decided in the aforementioned decisions, for a revised return to be valid, the essential condition is that the assessee should not be aware of the mistake