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 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 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

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 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

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

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

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

75,17,581 A.Y.2013-14 82,82,795 A.Y.2014-15 3,00,64,911 A.Y.2015-16 33,79,91,711 3.1 During the year under consideration, the assessee claimed During the year under consideration, the assessee claimed During the year under consideration, the assessee claimed carry forward of the short term capital and long term capital loss. carry forward of the short term

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

75,17,581 A.Y.2013-14 82,82,795 A.Y.2014-15 3,00,64,911 A.Y.2015-16 33,79,91,711 3.1 During the year under consideration, the assessee claimed During the year under consideration, the assessee claimed During the year under consideration, the assessee claimed carry forward of the short term capital and long term capital loss. carry forward of the short term

JT. CIT(OSD)CENTRAL CIRCLE-5(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S ASPEN INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD , MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes and Cross Objections of the assessee are dismissed

75,167/-, being unaccounted commission paid for arranging M/s. Aspen International Pvt. Ltd. accommodation entry which is in the nature of bogus long term capital gains in patent violation of the infringement of the provisions of the Act?" 3. "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT (A), without prejudice

JT. CIT (OSD) CENTRAL CIRCLE 5(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S ASPEN INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes and Cross Objections of the assessee are dismissed

75,167/-, being unaccounted commission paid for arranging M/s. Aspen International Pvt. Ltd. accommodation entry which is in the nature of bogus long term capital gains in patent violation of the infringement of the provisions of the Act?" 3. "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT (A), without prejudice

JT. CIT (OSD) CENTRAL CIRCLE 5(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S ASPEN INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes and Cross Objections of the assessee are dismissed

75,167/-, being unaccounted commission paid for arranging M/s. Aspen International Pvt. Ltd. accommodation entry which is in the nature of bogus long term capital gains in patent violation of the infringement of the provisions of the Act?" 3. "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT (A), without prejudice

JT. CIT(OSD)CENTRAL CIRCLE-5(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S ASPEN INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes and Cross Objections of the assessee are dismissed

75,167/-, being unaccounted commission paid for arranging M/s. Aspen International Pvt. Ltd. accommodation entry which is in the nature of bogus long term capital gains in patent violation of the infringement of the provisions of the Act?" 3. "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT (A), without prejudice

JT. CIT (OSD) CENTRAL CIRCLE 5(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S ASPEN INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes and Cross Objections of the assessee are dismissed

75,167/-, being unaccounted commission paid for arranging M/s. Aspen International Pvt. Ltd. accommodation entry which is in the nature of bogus long term capital gains in patent violation of the infringement of the provisions of the Act?" 3. "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT (A), without prejudice