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

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

section 144C (5) of the act issued by the dispute resolution panel – one, Mumbai dated 11/9/2023 wherein the income of the assessee returned of ₹ 1,315,354,310/– is assessed at ₹ 1,342,831,140/–. The only issue in this appeal is that assessee has earned short- 032. term capital gain of ₹ 27,576,830/– which is not subject

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

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

section 144C (5) of the act issued by the dispute resolution panel – one, Mumbai dated 11/9/2023 wherein the income of the assessee returned of ₹ 1,315,354,310/– is assessed at ₹ 1,342,831,140/–. The only issue in this appeal is that assessee has earned short- 032. term capital gain of ₹ 27,576,830/– which is not subject

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

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

section 144C (5) of the act issued by the dispute resolution panel – one, Mumbai dated 11/9/2023 wherein the income of the assessee returned of ₹ 1,315,354,310/– is assessed at ₹ 1,342,831,140/–. The only issue in this appeal is that assessee has earned short- 032. term capital gain of ₹ 27,576,830/– which is not subject

ISHARES EMSC MAURITIUS CO ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION )-2(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

section 144C (5) of the act issued by the dispute resolution panel – one, Mumbai dated 11/9/2023 wherein the income of the assessee returned of ₹ 1,315,354,310/– is assessed at ₹ 1,342,831,140/–. The only issue in this appeal is that assessee has earned short- 032. term capital gain of ₹ 27,576,830/– which is not subject

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

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

section 144C (5) of the act issued by the dispute resolution panel – one, Mumbai dated 11/9/2023 wherein the income of the assessee returned of ₹ 1,315,354,310/– is assessed at ₹ 1,342,831,140/–. The only issue in this appeal is that assessee has earned short- 032. term capital gain of ₹ 27,576,830/– which is not subject

CYFAST ENTERPRISES P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 10(3), MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year:2011-12 Cyfast Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Dcit, Afl House, Circle-10(3), बनाम/ Lok Bharati Complex, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Marol Maroshi Road, M.K. Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400059 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaacu4945K "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Nitesh Joshi & Shri Sunil Jhunjhunwala राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By Shri Anandi Verma-Cit-Dr

section 2(14) of the Act. In other words, the amount of capital gain will be `0 (Full value of consideration received at `2 – Cost of acquisition and cost of improvement of `2) 10. From the above discussion it is manifest that for the purposes of computing capital gain on the transfer of capital assets their cost of acquisition

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

ADIT (E) RG I, MUMBAI vs. MEHTA CHARITY TRUST, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year: 2004-05 The Ddit(E)I(1), Mehta Charity Trust, R. No.504, Piramal Top Floor, Mehta Mahal, 15Th बनाम/ Chambers, 5Thfloor, Parel, Mathew Road, Opera House, Vs. Mumbai-400012 Mumbai-400004 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No.Aaatm5060A

section 11, income derived from property held under trust for charitable or religious purposes is exempt from income-tax to the extent such income is actually applied to such purposes during the previous year itself or within three months next following. As “income” includes “capital gains”, a charitable or religious trust would forfeit exemption from income-tax in respect

ADITYA BIRLA TELECOM LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DY. COMM OF INCOME TAX 10(1), MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

section" 44. In support of the proposition that one of the ingredients for computation for capital gain is absent, no capital gains could be levied due to failure of computation mechanism, reliance can be placed on the following judicial pronouncements. (i) PNB Finance Ltd. vs CIT. (3071TR 75

TATA SONS LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT 2, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 48.\n3. Profits or gains must arise from the transfer and must be\nembedded in the consideration.\nSince the point raised in the first argument is not material\nregarding the issue involved before us, therefore, it would suffice\nto point out that the Hon'ble court held that such contribution of\nthe capital by way of transfer of personal

SMT.MANJU MAHENDRA GOYAL,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 19(2)(3), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Assessment Year: 2012-13 Smt. Manju Mahendra Goyal Income Tax Officer-19(2)(3), A/802, Surya Apartments, Room No.2018, Matru बनाम/ 53, Bhulabhai Desai Road, Mandir, Tardeo Road, Vs. Mumbai-400026 Mumbai-400007 "नधा"रती / Assessee राज"व / Revenue P.A. No.Aafpg2990N

section. Such assessee can invest capital gains for purchase of residential building/house to seek exemption of the capital gains tax. 2.5. The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in K.C. Kaushik vs. Income Tax Officer 185 ITR 499 (Bom) held as under: 8 Smt. Manju Mahendra Goyal “1. The petitioner is in the service of the Bank of Baroda. He purchased

ITO 16(1)(4), MUMBAI vs. SHASHANKA GHOSH, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2011-12 Income Tax Officer-16(1)(4), Vs Shri Shashanka Ghosh, Room No.438, 4Th Floor, C-701, Jay Bharat Chs Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, Off. Yari Road,Near Amarnath M. K. Road, Tower, Varsova Andher (West), Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400061 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Acwpg5915E

section. Such assessee can invest capital gains for purchase of residential building/house to seek exemption of the capital gains tax. 9 Shri Shashanka Ghosh 2.5. The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in K.C. Kaushik vs. Income Tax Officer 185 ITR 499 (Bom) held as under: “1. The petitioner is in the service of the Bank of Baroda. He purchased

SHANNO MOHAMMED YUSUF WARSI ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-25(1)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2013-14

section 148A of the A f the section 148A of the Act with effect from 1/4/2021, t 1/4/2021, the Assessing Officer was not he Assessing Officer was not authorised to carry authorised to carry out any enquiry, before issue issue of notice under section 148 of the A section 148 of the Act and therefore he was supposed to record

J P TRUST,MUMBAI vs. DY COMM. OF INCOME TAX IT CIRCLE 32(1), MUMBAI

Accordingly the ground raised by the assessee in this regard is allowed

Bench: Narender Kumar Choudhry, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

gain from transfer of other capital assets, of Rs. 1,75,56,572 taxable at the normal rate of 30% For computing the tax liability, the assessee paid the entire tax on STCG u/s 111A amounting to Rs 29,00,610/- and then, set off the STCL u/s 111A amounting to Rs 43,75,895/- against the STCG taxable

PRASHANT KOTHARI,SINGAPORE vs. CIT A (57) MUMBAI, OFFICE OF COMMISSIONER OF APPEALS MUMBAI

In the result, the additional ground of\nappeal is allowed

section 90 of the Act and by force of Article 13(4) of DTAA and\nsection 90(2) of the IT Act, capital gain arising to resident of Singapore is\nnot taxable in India and therefore, Article 24 was not applicable in the case\nof the appellant. To support the argument, the appellant relied upon the\ndecisions in the case

MATRIX PARTNERS INDIA INVESTMENT HOLDINGS, LLC,MAURITIUS vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Ms. Padmavathy S ()

75,20,89,749 as claimed in income tax return during the year under consideration without setting-off the long-term capital gains of INR 31,59,01,013, being a different source and claimed as exempt under Article 13(4) of the India-Mauritius Double Tax Avoidance Agreement ('DTAA'). 2. Erroneous initiation of penalty under section

SCHWAB FUNDAMENTAL EMERGING MARKETS EQUITY ETY ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-4(2)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA (Accountant Member)

Section 111A of the Act. Thus, the Assessing Officer recomputed assessable Short Term Capital Gains as under: Short-term capital gains/ (loss) Taxable at 15% Taxable at 30% (STT paid) (Non-STT paid) Short-Term Capital Gains 7,18,24,822 1,92,80,432 Less Current year’s Short Term Capital (74,75

ITO 25(2)(5), MUMBAI vs. KIRIT RAOJIBHAI PATEL, MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the learned AO is dismissed

Bench: Sri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Sri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm The Income Tax Officer- Kirit Raojibhai Patel 25(2)(5) 5Th Floor Ram Niwas, 34, Room No. 506, C-10, Vallabhnagar, N.S. Road, Vs. Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Bkc, Juhu, Vile Parele(W), Mumbai-400 051 Mumbai-400 049 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabpp3139J Assessee Represented By : Shri Rashmikant Choksey, Ar Department Represented By : Shri K.K. Mishra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 08.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.02.2022

gain account scheme utilised for renovation of the new flat which is nothing but the cost of improvement and thus cannot be included in the cost of new flat for the purpose of claiming deduction u/s 54F. 03. Brief facts of the case shows that the assessee is an individual resident who filed his return of income for Assessment Year