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)

55,47,350/- claimed in the return of income, Assessment Year 2022-2023 the Assessing Officer has granted credit only to the extent of INR.5,06,18,157/-. Therefore, the Assessing Officer is directed to verify the records and grant credit for the balance amount of taxes deducted at source as per law. In terms of aforesaid Ground No.7 raised

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)

55,47,350/- claimed in the return of income, Assessment Year 2022-2023 the Assessing Officer has granted credit only to the extent of INR.5,06,18,157/-. Therefore, the Assessing Officer is directed to verify the records and grant credit for the balance amount of taxes deducted at source as per law. In terms of aforesaid Ground No.7 raised

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

Ac prescribes for offer of capital gain tax on such conversion in the prescribes for offer of capital gain tax on such conversion in the prescribes for offer of capital gain tax on such conversion in the year of sale of stock in trade. year of sale of stock in trade. The two issues are involved in this

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

Ac prescribes for offer of capital gain tax on such conversion in the prescribes for offer of capital gain tax on such conversion in the prescribes for offer of capital gain tax on such conversion in the year of sale of stock in trade. year of sale of stock in trade. The two issues are involved in this

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

Ac prescribes for offer of capital gain tax on such conversion in the prescribes for offer of capital gain tax on such conversion in the prescribes for offer of capital gain tax on such conversion in the year of sale of stock in trade. year of sale of stock in trade. The two issues are involved in this

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

Ac prescribes for offer of capital gain tax on such conversion in the prescribes for offer of capital gain tax on such conversion in the prescribes for offer of capital gain tax on such conversion in the year of sale of stock in trade. year of sale of stock in trade. The two issues are involved in this

NETWORTH STOCK BROKING LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIR 4(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

55(2) of the Act by the Finance Act 2001 w.e.f. 01/04/2002 in respect of capital asset being equity shares allotted to a shareholder of a recognized stock exchange under the scheme of corporatization as approved by SEBI and this provision cannot be interpreted in any other way except that the cost of acquisition of capital asset will be taken

ACIT 4(2), MUMBAI vs. NETWORTH STOCK BROKING LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

55(2) of the Act by the Finance Act 2001 w.e.f. 01/04/2002 in respect of capital asset being equity shares allotted to a shareholder of a recognized stock exchange under the scheme of corporatization as approved by SEBI and this provision cannot be interpreted in any other way except that the cost of acquisition of capital asset will be taken

NETWORTH STOCK BROKING LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIR 4(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

55(2) of the Act by the Finance Act 2001 w.e.f. 01/04/2002 in respect of capital asset being equity shares allotted to a shareholder of a recognized stock exchange under the scheme of corporatization as approved by SEBI and this provision cannot be interpreted in any other way except that the cost of acquisition of capital asset will be taken

ACIT 4(2), MUMBAI vs. NETWORTH STOCK BROKING LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

55(2) of the Act by the Finance Act 2001 w.e.f. 01/04/2002 in respect of capital asset being equity shares allotted to a shareholder of a recognized stock exchange under the scheme of corporatization as approved by SEBI and this provision cannot be interpreted in any other way except that the cost of acquisition of capital asset will be taken

ITO 32(3)(4), MUMBAI vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA STAFF VAIBHAV CO-OP. HSG. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and cross objection of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am Ito-32(3)(4) Vs. State Bank Of India Staff Room No.103, 1St Floor Vaibhav Co-Op Hsg. Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan Bungalow No.8, Daulat M.K.Road, Nagar, Road No.1, Mumbai – 400 020 Borivali (E) Mumbai – 400 066 Pan/Gir No.Aaias1423J (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Co No.8/Mum/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita No.5324/Mum/2016) (Assessment Year :2011-12) State Bank Of India Vs. Ito-32(3)(4) Room No.103, 1St Floor Staff Vaibhav Co-Op Hsg. Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan Bungalow No.8, Daulat M.K.Road, Nagar, Road No.1, Mumbai – 400 020 Borivali (E) Mumbai – 400 066 Pan/Gir No.Aaias1423J (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Revenue By Shri Santanu Kumar Saikia Assessee By Shri Dr. P. Daniel Date Of Hearing 13/06/2019 Date Of Pronouncement 19/06/2019

gains. Hence the answer to question no. a) raised hereinabove, is decided in favour of the assessee. 8.3. The provisions of section 55(2) of the Act states as under:- ―55(2) For the purposes of sections 48 and 49, "cost of acquisition",— (a) in relation to a capital asset, being goodwill of a business or a trade mark

NOMURA INDIA INVESTMENT FUND,MUMBAI vs. ADDL DIT (IT) RG 4, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: S/Shri Saktijit Dey & Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

section 55(2)(ac) provides some insight on the matter. The aforesaid provision provides that where the capital assets are listed in any recognised stock exchange as on the 31.01.2018, the highest price of the share quoted on the said date should be considered as fair market value. It further provides, where there is no trading of capital asset

DCIT (IT) 4(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ROBECO QI INSTITUTIONAL EMERGING MARKETS ENHANCED INDEX EQUITIES FUND, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh () Assessment Year: 2016-17 Dcit (It)-4(1)(1), Robeco Institutioneel Emerging Markets 625, Kautilya Bhavan, G-Block, Fonds, Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, C/O Ernst & Young Llp, 14Th Floor, Mumbai-400051. The Ruby, 29 Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar (West), Mumbai-400028. Pan No. Aacts 7682 L Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2021-22 Dcit (It)-4(1)(1), Robeco Q1 Institutional Emerging 625, Kautilya Bhavan, G-Block, Markets Enhanced Index Equities Fund, Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, 14Th Floor, The Rc/O Ernst & Young Mumbai-400051. Llp, 29 Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar (West), Mumbai-400028. Pan No. Aabtr 2305 L Appellant Respondent

55, the Department preferred appeals to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals affirming the decision of the High Court appeals affirming the decision of the High Court appeals affirming the decision of the High Court that

DCIT (IT) - 4(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ROBECO INSTITUTIONEEL EMERGING MARKETS FONDS , MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh () Assessment Year: 2016-17 Dcit (It)-4(1)(1), Robeco Institutioneel Emerging Markets 625, Kautilya Bhavan, G-Block, Fonds, Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, C/O Ernst & Young Llp, 14Th Floor, Mumbai-400051. The Ruby, 29 Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar (West), Mumbai-400028. Pan No. Aacts 7682 L Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2021-22 Dcit (It)-4(1)(1), Robeco Q1 Institutional Emerging 625, Kautilya Bhavan, G-Block, Markets Enhanced Index Equities Fund, Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, 14Th Floor, The Rc/O Ernst & Young Mumbai-400051. Llp, 29 Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar (West), Mumbai-400028. Pan No. Aabtr 2305 L Appellant Respondent

55, the Department preferred appeals to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals affirming the decision of the High Court appeals affirming the decision of the High Court appeals affirming the decision of the High Court that

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 of section 55(2)(ac

ROMIEL SAMUEL,MUMBAI vs. ITO 18(3)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Nk Pradhan, Am

55(2)(a) of the Act, it may be seen that the same do not include Transferable Development Rights (TDRs). Therefore, the sale of TDR will not be liable to capital gains tax. The case law of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs Sambhaji Nagar Co-op. Hsg. Society

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 of section 55(2)(ac

VINOD L. GADHIYA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC5(3), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singh

55,000 shares to preferential allottees/subscribers in two rounds of allotment. In the first round 1,05,05,000 shares were allotted on 19.01.2012 at a value of Rs.15 per share of face value of Rs.10/- each at a premium of Rs.5/-. These shares were listed on stock exchange on 28.02.2012. In the 2nd round of preferential allotment