SURENDRA GARG HUF ,MUMBAI vs. ITO- 19(3)(4), MUMBAI

Section 68 of the Act and the disallowance of Long Term Capital Gains exemption under Section 10(38) were justified

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

long term capital gains not chargeable to tax under the IM Treaty form part of the 'total income' of the Appellant as per section 2(24) of the Act read with section 4 and 5 4. erred in holding that mode of computation of capital gains should be as per the provisions of the Act and the provisions

ISHARES MSCI ALL COUNTRY ASIA EX JAPAN ETF,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (INT. TAX)-2(2)(2), MUMBAI

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

long term capital gains not chargeable to tax under\nthe IM Treaty form part of the 'total income' of the Appellant as per section\n2(24) of the Act read with section 4 and 5\n4. erred in holding that mode of computation of capital gains should be as per\nthe provisions of the Act and the provisions

ALPESH K. AJMERA HUF ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 18(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands\nallowed

long-term capital gain and\nshort term capital gain on sale of shares of\ntwo companies Assessing Officer treated\nboth transactions as bogus and added entire\namount to assessee's income under section 68

DCIT - 19(1), MUMBAI, PIRAMAL CHAMBERS, MUMBAI vs. DISHANT DEEPAK SHAH, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2016-17

Long Term Capital Gains, Short Term Capital Gains and losses on share transactions in listed penny stocks. losses on share transactions in listed penny stocks. losses on share transactions in listed penny stocks. Statements of many entry providers and beneficiaries Statements of many entry providers and beneficiaries Statements of many entry providers and beneficiaries were recorded under section

VIJAYA PRAKASH NAGORI ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 32(2)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain& Shri Om Prakash Kantvijaya Prakash Nagori Vs. Ito, Ward, 32(2)(1) 409/C, Abhar Jp Road, Kautilya Bhawan, C-41- Seven Bungalows, Andhere 43, Avenue, 3, Near (W), Mumbai – 400 061. Videsh Bhavan, G Block Bkc Pan/Gir No. Aekpr2943H (Applicant) (Respondent)

68 and 69, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Capital gains - Income arising from transfer of long term securities (Illustrations) - Assessment year 2014-15 - Assessee filed its return for relevant year - Subsequently, pursuant to a survey assessee filed revised return and claimed exemption in respect of long-term capital gains on shares under section

LEKHRAJ JASRAJ JAIN ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 19(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2014-15

68 of the Act and of Rs. 1,10,986/- u/s 69C of the Act without providing the appellant a copy of u/s 69C of the Act without providing the appellant a copy of u/s 69C of the Act without providing the appellant a copy of the material and statement relied upon as well as an the material and statement

DEVANG BHUPENDRA SHAH,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 32(1)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankardevang Bhupendra Shah, V/S. Income Tax Officer, Ward – B/9, Neminath Apt., बनाम 32(1)(4), Kautilya Bhavan, Shimpoli Road, Borivali Bandra Kurla Complex, West, Mumbai – 400 092, Bandra (East), Mumbai– Maharashtra 400051, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aadps1211L Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

long-term capital gains on shores under section 10(38) - Assessing Officer P a g e | 47 A.Y. 2014-15 Pratap Uttam Purohit rejected assessee's plea and made additions under sections 68

RAMESH JAISINGHANI,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

68. Consequently, in the present case, the fair market value as on 31 January 2018, taken at ₹500 per share as per the valuation report submitted by the assessee, shall constitute the cost of acquisition for the purpose of computing long-term capital gains. Applying this measure, the resultant gain under section

PRAVEEN SITARAM AGARWAL,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WD-24(3)(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

section 68 on account of the 2 Praveen Sitaram Agarwal alleged bogus long‑term capital gains earned from the sale

ANAND MELLARAM ISSRANI ,MUMBAI vs. ASST. COMM. OF INCOME TAX 23(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Anand Mellaram Issrani, Acit 23(1), 1St Floor, Charishma Chs, Guru Piramal Chambers, Nanak Road, Bandra Vs. Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaapi 1267 K Appellant Respondent

Sections 68 and 69C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) on the allegation that the assessee routed unaccounted income tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) on the allegation that the assessee routed unaccounted income tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) on the allegation that the assessee routed unaccounted income through Long-Term Capital Gain

BENNETT, COLEMAN & CO LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 1(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, this ground-7 of appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri. Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

long-term capital gains of Rs.50.95 crores from the sale of equity shares and earned tax-free interest income of Rs.65.43 crores from tax-free bonds. The aforesaid income was claimed exempt under section 10(35) of the Act. While filing the return of income, the assessee, on a suo motu basis, computed the disallowance of expenditure incurred in relation

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)

long-term capital gain on sale of shares term capital gain on sale of shares under section 10(38) and made addition of LTCG under section 10(38) and made addition of LTCG under section 68

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

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

68 and 69, of\nthe Income-tax Act, 1961- Capital gains\nIncome arising from transfer of long term\nsecurities(Illustrations)\n Assessment year 2014-15- Assessee filed its\nreturn for relevant year Subsequently,\npursuant to a survey assessee filed revised\nreturn and claimed exemption in respect of\nlong-term capital gains on shares under section

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

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

capital gain, which had been claimed by the\nassessee as exempt under section 10(38), were sham\ntransactions. It was held that it was a case of bogus long-term\ncapital gain obtained through brokers and that the assessee\nhad used colourable device for avoidance of tax. The receipt of\nRs.23,68

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

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

capital gain, which had been claimed by the\nassessee as exempt under section 10(38), were sham\ntransactions. It was held that it was a case of bogus long-term\ncapital gain obtained through brokers and that the assessee\nhad used colourable device for avoidance of tax. The receipt of\nRs.23,68

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

gains computed under section 50, arising on transfer of long term capital assets, at the rates mentioned in section 112 of the Act instead of charging them at the normal rates as has been done by the AO.” ITA No. 1022/Mum/2025 – Revenue “1. Whether on the facts in the circumstances of the case the Ld.CIT(A) was justified in allowing

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)

68,11,892 Taxable @ 15% Long Term Capital Gain 5,24,02,19,366 Taxable @ 10% Income from Other sources 1,24,38,93,370 Taxable @ 20% (Dividend income) Income from Other sources 1,90,920 Taxable @ 30% (interest from company) Total Taxable income 6,56,03,95,980 15. Assessed under section

FIDELITY RUTLAND SQUARE TRUST II STRATEGIC ADVISERS EMERGING MARKETS FUND ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), MUMBAI

The appeals are partly allowed

68,115/-.\n6.1.\nXX\nXX\n7. XX\nXX\n8. XX\nXX\n9. We have given a thoughtful consideration to the\norders of the authorities below. It is true that\ndifferent rates of taxes have been provided\nu/s.115AD and 111A of the Act in respect of gain on\nnon-STT paid shares and STT paid shares but it is\nalso