ISHARES CORE MSCI EMERGING MARKETS ETF (AS A SUCCESSOR TO ISHARES CORE EMERGING MARKETS MAURITIUS COMPANY ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (TP) 2(2)(2), 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

house property, profit and gains from business of profession, capital gains and income from other sources. Section 66 to 80 deals with the aggregation of income and set off /carry forward of loss. 7.1. Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of CIT vs. M. N. Raigi reported in (1949) 17 ITR 180 considered as to whether share income

RAJENDRA KUMAR MUNDRA (HUF),MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE (NFAC), DELHI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain& Shri Girish Agrawalrajendra Kumar Mundra Vs. Ito, Ward 24(3)(1) (Huf) Piramal Chamber C-28, Ameya Bldg, Behind Lalbaug, Mumbai – Ymca Dn Nagar Andheri (W) 400012. 400053. Pan/Gir No.Aadh6828J (Applicant) (Respondent)

house and the seller only receives sales consideration from the stock exchange through the share broker. Therefore, neither the seller knew the purchasers, nor the purchasers knew the seller. In absence of any corroborative evidence that both Seller and Purchaser have indulged into some clandestine transactions, there is not even a remote possibility of hobnobbing. Therefore, the appellant cannot

ITO 41(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. DEEPIKA ANIL AGARWAL, MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue stands\ndismissed

house and the seller only receives sales\nconsideration from the stock exchange through the share\nbroker. Therefore, in this way neither the seller was knowing\nthe purchasers, nor the purchasers were knowing the seller.\n11. Thus in the absence of any corroborative evidence that\nboth Seller and Purchaser have indulged into some\nclandestine transactions, there is not even a remote

GOVIND CORPORATION ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 8(1), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands\ndismissed

house property and other sources and also income\nfrom investing in shares. The assessee claimed exempt income\nu/s 10 (38) of the Act in respect of long term capital gain

CHITRA AVDHESH MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. ITO 33 (1) (3), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands\ndismissed

house property and other sources and also income\nfrom investing in shares. The assessee claimed exempt income\nu/s 10 (38) of the Act in respect of long term capital gain

PRIYA KAPIL TODARWAL ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD, 30(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Smt. Renu Jauhri ()

long term capital gains unless it is specifically prohibited. 4.5 The Ld.AR vehemently submitted that, the legislature has made its intention very clear regarding the restriction that is imposed against the set off of income against a particular head of income which further supported by the circular dated 07/07/1955. 4.6 On the contrary, the Ld.DR relied on the orders passed

SAMIR NARAIN BHOJWANI ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 4(2)(1), MUMBAI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

capital in nature after completion of project when revenue had already been recognized from the project?” 2. The assessee before us also filed additional ground which reads as under: “Additional Ground No. III: Allowability of maintenance expenses of Rs. 92.32.199/- On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the maintenance expenditure

ACIT 421 MUMBAI, MUMBAI CITY vs. SAMIR NARAIN BHOJWANI, MUMBAI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the\nappeal of the revenue is dismissed

Gains of Business or Profession.\"\n6\nITA Nos.261 & 1022/Mum/2025\nSamir Narain Bhojwani\n6. The AO during the course of assessment called on the assessee to furnish the\ndetails pertaining to the amount of Rs.12,40,00,703/- debited to the P&L A/c as\npayment as per consent terms. Based on the details furnished by the assessee, the\nAO held

BRAJ KISHORE SINGH,ANDHERI EAST vs. ASSESSING OFFICER INT. TAX WARD 4(2)(1), INTERNATIONAL TAX, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is accordingly partly allowed for statistical

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanbraj Kishore Singh Vs. Assessing Officer 604, Lantana, Nahar Amrit Internatinal Tax Ward Shakti, Chandivali, 4(2)91) Maharashtra -400 072. Room No. 632, Kautilya Bhavan, Pan: Bqips8474H C-41 To C-43, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051

House property income (-)11,778 as per statement 2. Long term capital gain as 17,04,264 discussed at para

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

house property,\nprofit and gains from business of profession, capital gains and income from\nother sources. Section 66 to 80 deals with the aggregation of income and set\noff /carry forward of loss.\n7. 1. Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case of CIT vs. M. N. Raigi reported in\n(1949) 17 ITR 180 considered as to whether share

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

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical\npurposes

house property,\nprofit and gains from business of profession, capital gains and income from\nother sources. Section 66 to 80 deals with the aggregation of income and set\noff /carry forward of loss.\n7. 1. Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case of CIT vs. M. N. Raigi reported in\n(1949) 17 ITR 180 considered as to whether share

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

house property,\nprofit and gains from business of profession, capital gains and income from\nother sources. Section 66 to 80 deals with the aggregation of income and set\noff /carry forward of loss.\n\n7. 1. Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case of CIT vs. M. N. Raigi reported in\n(1949) 17 ITR 180 considered as to whether

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

house property,\nprofit and gains from business of profession, capital gains and income from\nother sources. Section 66 to 80 deals with the aggregation of income and set\noff /carry forward of loss.\n\n7. 1. Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case of CIT vs. M. N. Raigi reported in\n(1949) 17 ITR 180 considered as to whether

ISHARES MSCI ALL COUNTRY ASIA EX JAPAN ETF(AS A SUCCESSOR TO ISHARES MSCI ALL COUNTRY ASIA EX JAPAN MAURITIUS CO),MUMBAI vs. DCIT (INT)-2(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical\npurposes

house property,\nprofit and gains from business of profession, capital gains and income from\nother sources. Section 66 to 80 deals with the aggregation of income and set\noff /carry forward of loss.\n7. 1. Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case of CIT vs. M. N. Raigi reported in\n(1949) 17 ITR 180 considered as to whether share

ISHARES CORE MSCI EMERGING MARKETS ETF (AS A SUCESSOR TO ISHARES CORE EMERGING MARKETS MAURITIUS COMPANY),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

house property,\nprofit and gains from business of profession, capital gains and income from\nother sources. Section 66 to 80 deals with the aggregation of income and set\noff /carry forward of loss.\n7. 1. Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case of CIT vs. M. N. Raigi reported in\n(1949) 17 ITR 180 considered as to whether share

ISHARES MSCI EMERGING MARKETS ETF (AS A SUCCESSOR TO ISHARES EMERGING MARKETS INDEX 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

house property,\nprofit and gains from business of profession, capital gains and income from\nother sources. Section 66 to 80 deals with the aggregation of income and set\noff /carry forward of loss.\n7. 1. Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case of CIT vs. M. N. Raigi reported in\n(1949) 17 ITR 180 considered as to whether share

ISHARES CORE MSCI TOTAL INTERNATIONAL STOCK ETF (AS A SUCCESSOR TO ISHARES CORE TOTAL INTERNATIONAL STOCK MAURITIUS CO ),MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-2(2)(2), MUMBAI

house property,\nprofit and gains from business of profession, capital gains and income from\nother sources. Section 66 to 80 deals with the aggregation of income and set\noff /carry forward of loss.\n7. 1. Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case of CIT vs. M. N. Raigi reported in\n(1949) 17 ITR 180 considered as to whether share

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

house property,\nprofit and gains from business of profession, capital gains and income from\nother sources. Section 66 to 80 deals with the aggregation of income and set\noff /carry forward of loss.\n7. 1. Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case of CIT vs. M. N. Raigi reported in\n(1949) 17 ITR 180 considered as to whether share

ISHARES MSCI INDIA ETF(AS A SUCESSOR TO ISHARES INDIA INDEX MARUITIUS COMPANY),MUMBAI vs. DCIT (INT)-2(2)(2), MUMBAI

house property,\nprofit and gains from business of profession, capital gains and income from\nother sources. Section 66 to 80 deals with the aggregation of income and set\noff /carry forward of loss.\n7. 1. Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case of CIT vs. M. N. Raigi reported in\n(1949) 17 ITR 180 considered as to whether share