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

SIR RATAN TATA TRUST,MUMBAI SUBURBAN vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION)-2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in both AY 2014-15 and AY

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

House, 24, National Faceless Assessment Homi Mody Street, Fort, Centre-2(1), Vs. Mumbai-400001 MTNL Tele Building, PAN : AAATS1013P Cumballa Hills, Peddar Road, Mumbai-400026. Appellant) : Respondent) Appellant/Assessee by : Shri P. J. Pardiwala a/w Shri Sukhsagar Syal, AR Revenue/Respondent by : Shri Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 22.07.2024 Date of Pronouncement 26.08.2024 : Per Padmavathy S, AM: 1. These

SIR RATAN TATA TRUST,MUMBAI SUBURBAN vs. ADDITIONAL /JOINT/DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NFAC, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in both AY 2014-15 and AY

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

House, 24, National Faceless Assessment Homi Mody Street, Fort, Centre-2(1), Vs. Mumbai-400001 MTNL Tele Building, PAN : AAATS1013P Cumballa Hills, Peddar Road, Mumbai-400026. Appellant) : Respondent) Appellant/Assessee by : Shri P. J. Pardiwala a/w Shri Sukhsagar Syal, AR Revenue/Respondent by : Shri Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 22.07.2024 Date of Pronouncement 26.08.2024 : Per Padmavathy S, AM: 1. These

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 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 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 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

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 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 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

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

M/S ARENA ENTERPRISES,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD, 41(4)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for stati...

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

House Property', which is not allowable. As such, provisions of uch, provisions of section 40A(2)(b) of the Act are clearly applicable in respect of section 40A(2)(b) of the Act are clearly applicable in respect of section 40A(2)(b) of the Act are clearly applicable in respect of interest payment of Rs.2,19,87,072/ interest

M/S ARENA ENTERPRISES ,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD 41(4)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for stati...

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

House Property', which is not allowable. As such, provisions of uch, provisions of section 40A(2)(b) of the Act are clearly applicable in respect of section 40A(2)(b) of the Act are clearly applicable in respect of section 40A(2)(b) of the Act are clearly applicable in respect of interest payment of Rs.2,19,87,072/ interest

ADDL CIT R G 7(1), MUMBAI vs. NOVARTIS INDIA LTD ( FORMERLY KNOWN AS HINDUSTAN CIBA GIEGY LTD. ), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Novartis India Limited V. Asst. Commissioner Of Income –Tax - 7(2)(2) {Earlier Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1)} 6Th& 7Th Floor 1St Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Inspire Bkc M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 “G” Block, Bkc Main Road Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E) Mumbai – 400051 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent) Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1) V. M/S. Novartis India Limited Room No. 622, Aayakar Bhavan {Earlier Known As Hindustan Ciba Giegy Ltd.,} Sandoz House, Dr. A.B. Road M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Worli, Mumbai – 400018 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No.190/Mum/2011 [Arising Out Of Ita No.6772/Mum/2010 (A.Y. 2002-03)] M/S. Novartis India Limited V. Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1)} Room No. 622, Aayakar Bhavan {Earlier Known As Hindustan Ciba Giegy Ltd.,} Sandoz House, Dr. A.B. Road M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Worli, Mumbai – 400018 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent)

270A, section 271, section 271A,section 271J or section 272A; or (b) an order passed by an Assessing Officer under clause (c) of section 158BC, in respect of search initiated under section 132 or books of account, other documents or any assets requisitioned under section 132A, after the 30th day of June, 1995, but before the 1st day of January

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

ISHARES CORE MSCI TOTAL INTERNATIONAL STOCK ETF (AS A SUCCESSOR TO ISHARE CORE TAOTAL INTERNATIONAL STOCK MAURITIUS COMPANY ),MUMBAI vs. DY CIT (INT. TAX)-2(2)(1), 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

D C POLYESTER LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-6(4), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

2 D C Polyester Ltd. 3. During the course of scrutiny proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee has offered rental income of Rs.29,60,000/- under the head ‘income from house property’. The Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee had declared the rental income from very same property under the head ‘income from business’ in an earlier year