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

short term and long term capital gains earned by the assessee during the year in question, thus 'set aside' the order of the A.O in context of the issue under consideration. Accordingly, we direct the A.O to allow carry forward of the b/forward STCL of Rs. 3926,36,70,910/- to the subsequent years." ITAs No.6050, 6051 & 6774/Mum/2025

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

short term\ncapital gain.\nHeld that:\n15. Therefore, respectfully, following\nthe decision of the coordinate bench of\nthe Tribunal, we hold that the long\nterm capital gain on the sale of shares\nof M/s. Splash Media & Infra Ltd. is\nnot a bogus capital gain as the AO has\nsolely relied on the report of\ninvestigation/search team and has not\ncarried

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

short \"CIT(A)\") under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961\n(the Act) dated 18.12.2024 for Assessment Year (AY) 2022-23. The assessee and\nrevenue raised the following grounds:\nITA No. 261/Mum/2025 – Assessee\nGround I: Disallowance of Rs 3,72,00,210 under section 40(a)(ia) being 30%\nof the payment made under Consent Terms on account

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

short "CIT(A)") under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) dated 18.12.2024 for Assessment Year (AY) 2022-23. The assessee and revenue raised the following grounds: ITA No. 261/Mum/2025 – Assessee Ground I: Disallowance of Rs 3,72,00,210 under section 40(a)(ia) being 30% of the payment made under Consent Terms on account

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 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 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 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 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 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

ANAND SWARUP MEHTA ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(INTERNATIONAL TAX)-3(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is accordingly allowed for statistical purposes\nin the above terms

House property | | 22,40,000 |\n| 2. | Income from Capital Gains | |\n| | a) Long Term Capital Gains | | 2,76,29,385 |\n| | (On sale of property) | |\n| | b) Short

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

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

short term and long term capital gains earned\nby the assessee during the year in question, thus 'set aside' the order of the A.O in\ncontext of the issue under consideration. Accordingly, we direct the A.O to allow\ncarry forward of the b/forward STCL of Rs.3926,36,70,910/- to the subsequent\nyears.\"\nFrom the reading of above decisions

BAY CAPITAL INDIA FUND LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. CIT (A) 55, MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

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.\nITA No.6355/Mum/2024 (A.Y. 2019-20) 12\n7. 1. Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case of CIT vs. M. N. Raigi reported

SHRI ANIL MURARILAL AGARWAL,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 18(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2016-17 Anil Murarilal Agarwal Income Tax Officer, Ward-18(1)(1) 703, Purna Worli Chsl Mumbai. Vs. Pochkhanwala Road, Worli Earnest House, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400030. Mumbai-400021. Pan No. Aaapa 9215 B Appellant Respondent

House, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400030. Mumbai-400021. PAN NO. AAAPA 9215 B Appellant Respondent : Mr. Rakesh Joshi Assessee by : Mr. Ram Krishn Kedia, Sr. DR Revenue by : 13/02/2025 Date of Hearing Date of pronouncement : 24/03/2025 ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM This appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated 28/08/2024 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income

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 ()

short term and long term capital gains earned by the assessee during the year in question, thus 'set aside' the order of the A.O in context of the issue under consideration. Accordingly, we direct the A.O to allow carry forward of the b/forward STCL of Rs. 3926,36,70,910/- to the subsequent years." From the reading of above decisions

NUTECH ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-10(3)(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the appellant is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am)

House Property and no depreciation being claimed from that year thereon the gain arisen out of sale proceeds after indexation has been rightly declared as LTCG. The statement showing working of WDV of unit no.108 from the year of acquisition till the date of sale is enclosed herewith. 6. The A.O treated the Long Term Capital Gain as Short

BHAVANA LALIT JAIN,NAVI MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WD-15(1)(1), MUMBAI

The appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shriraj Kumar Chauhan, Jm

term capital gain of Rs. 22,652,350/– which is exempt under section 10 (38) of the act. xvii. The return of income was filed by the assessee on 31/1/2015 declaring total income of Rs. 956,480/– the income comprising in the above computation is income from house property, income from short

ITO-28.3.1, NAVI MUMBAI vs. SEEMA NARENDRA BAPNA, NERUL

In the result both the grounds of appeal are dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm A.Y.2014-15 Ito,28.3.1, Seema Narendra Bapna, Mumbai Flat No.A 2701, Plot No. R3 B Emerald Bay, Sector Vs. 14 Nerul, Navi Mumbai, Thane 400706

term capital gain of Rs. 22,652,350/– which is exempt under section 10 (38) of the act. xvii. The return of income was filed by the assessee on 31/1/2015 declaring total income of Rs. 956,480/– the income comprising in the above computation is income from house property, income from short