DCIT-3(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. RELCON INFRAPROJECTS LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

6,08,003 and 34 Nil (interest only) 2018 – 19 520,833 Nil (interest only) 2019 – 20 70,80,590/– ₹ 7,080,590 expenditure under section 69C 2020 – 21 Nil Nil 19. Thus the learned assessing officer is aggrieved by the addition deleted by the learned CIT – A with respect to bogus purchases and assessee is aggrieved

DCIT 3(1)(1),MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. RELCON INFRAPROJECTS LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

6,08,003 and 34 Nil (interest only) 2018 – 19 520,833 Nil (interest only) 2019 – 20 70,80,590/– ₹ 7,080,590 expenditure under section 69C 2020 – 21 Nil Nil 19. Thus the learned assessing officer is aggrieved by the addition deleted by the learned CIT – A with respect to bogus purchases and assessee is aggrieved

DCIT-3(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. RELCON INFRAPROJECTS LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

6,08,003 and 34 Nil (interest only) 2018 – 19 520,833 Nil (interest only) 2019 – 20 70,80,590/– ₹ 7,080,590 expenditure under section 69C 2020 – 21 Nil Nil 19. Thus the learned assessing officer is aggrieved by the addition deleted by the learned CIT – A with respect to bogus purchases and assessee is aggrieved

DCIT-3(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. RELCON INFRAPROJECTS LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

6,08,003 and 34 Nil (interest only) 2018 – 19 520,833 Nil (interest only) 2019 – 20 70,80,590/– ₹ 7,080,590 expenditure under section 69C 2020 – 21 Nil Nil 19. Thus the learned assessing officer is aggrieved by the addition deleted by the learned CIT – A with respect to bogus purchases and assessee is aggrieved

DCIT-3(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. RELCON INFRAPROJECTS LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

6,08,003 and 34 Nil (interest only) 2018 – 19 520,833 Nil (interest only) 2019 – 20 70,80,590/– ₹ 7,080,590 expenditure under section 69C 2020 – 21 Nil Nil 19. Thus the learned assessing officer is aggrieved by the addition deleted by the learned CIT – A with respect to bogus purchases and assessee is aggrieved

SUSHIL RAJENDRA KOTHARI ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 19(3), , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

270A of the Act of Rs 1129012 and completely ignored the facts and merits of the case. 2. The learned NFAC CIT (A) erred in Completely ignoring the fact that learning AO has not passed an order for rejection or granting of Immunity as Form 68 was duly submitted before the AO. The AO was duly bond to pass

MKF INTERNATIONAL,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIRCLE 17(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarmkf International Dcit Circle 17(1), 1903/1905, Aarus Wing, Kautilya Bhavan, Wallace Fortuna, Shivdas Vs. Bkc, Mumbai – Chapsi Marg, Opp-Fazlani 400 051 School, Chinchbunder Ho, Mumbai-400 009 Pan/Gir No. Abhfm5244N (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Dharmesh Shah A/W Ms. Mitali Parekh, Ld. Ars Revenue By Shri Umashankar Prasad, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 10.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 12.02.2026

68 and brought the same to tax at the special rate under section 115BBE. Penalty proceedings under section 270A were also initiated. 6

COCOCART VENTURES PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 14(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

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

68, for the grant of immunity from Imposition of penalty under Section 270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. The Ld. AO further erred in levying a penalty under section 270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, without specifying limb in the notice whether the penalty was levied for concealment of the particulars of income

NATHAN ANIL RAO, MUMBAI vs. THE ITO -CIRCLE 23(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant (Account Member) & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2017-18

6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as specifically requested by tax Act, 1961, as specifically requested by the Appellant, despite the Appellant having furnished all relevant details of the Appellant, despite the Appellant having furnished all relevant details of the Appellant, despite the Appellant having furnished all relevant details of the buyer; Erroneous levy of interest Erroneous levy

BAO VALUE FUND,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, INTERNATIONAL TAX, CIRCLE-1(2)(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

68 of the Act were not applicable to the appellant. The appellant prays that such computation of tax liability was without any application of mind and should be deleted. 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO had erred in levying surcharge 25% on the tax liability computed as per Section 115BBE

MORGAN STANLEY MAURITIUS COMPANY LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-CIRCLE 3(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2020-21 Morgan Stanley Mauritius Company Dy. Cit (International Taxation) – Ltd., Circle 3(2)(2), Vs. C/O S R B C & Associates Llp, 14Th 16Th Floor, Room No. 1615, Air India Floor, The Ruby, 29, Senapati Bapat Building Nariman Point, Marg, Dadar (West), Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400028. Pan No. Aadcm 5927 G Appellant Respondent

6: Initiation of penalty proceedings under section 270A of the Act On the facts and circumstances of the case, the le On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned AO erred in arned AO erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 270A of the Act for under initiating penalty proceedings under section 270A

FIDELITY SALEM STREET TRUST FIDELITY SAI EMERGING MARKETS INDEX FUND ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-2(3)(1), MUMBAI

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

270A of the Act alleging under reporting of income by the Appellant.” Assessment Year 2022-2023 Ground No.1 to 6: 3. The relevant facts in brief are that the Assessee, a trust organized in the United States of America, is registered with the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) as a Foreign Portfolio Investor. The Assessee makes portfolio investments

EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF TEXAS ,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT (INT. TAX)-2(2)(1), MUMBAI

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

270A of the Act alleging under reporting of income by the Appellant.” Assessment Year 2022-2023 Ground No.1 to 6: 3. The relevant facts in brief are that the Assessee, a trust organized in the United States of America, is registered with the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) as a Foreign Portfolio Investor. The Assessee makes portfolio investments

INCOME TAX OFFICER - 13(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. JAIDEEP METALLICS AND ALLOY PVT LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

68 of the Act. The Assessee had made detailed submissions (vide letter dated 18/12/2022) which was supported by documents/evidence to establish the genuineness of the purchases from the parties concerned. However, the same were brushed aside by the Assessing Officer who proceeded to make addition of INR.94,30,14,937/- under Section

INCOME TAX OFFICER - 13(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. JAIDEEP METALLICS AND ALLOYS PVT LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

68 of the Act. The Assessee had made detailed submissions (vide letter dated 18/12/2022) which was supported by documents/evidence to establish the genuineness of the purchases from the parties concerned. However, the same were brushed aside by the Assessing Officer who proceeded to make addition of INR.94,30,14,937/- under Section

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

68,24,02,310 Ground of Appeal No. 12: Initiation of penal proceedings under section 270A of the Act 12. erred in initiating penalty under section 270A of the Act alleging underreporting of income by the Appellant.” 40. Ground no.1 is general in nature. Therefore, the same needs no specific adjudication. 41. The issue arising in Grounds no.2-6

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

68,24,02,310 Ground of Appeal No. 12: Initiation of penal proceedings under section 270A of the Act 12. erred in initiating penalty under section 270A of the Act alleging underreporting of income by the Appellant.” 40. Ground no.1 is general in nature. Therefore, the same needs no specific adjudication. 41. The issue arising in Grounds no.2-6

MEHUL PRAVINCHANDRA SHETH ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, C.C 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

6. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the material placed on record. It is an undisputed fact that the assessment was completed under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act on 19.05.2023 and the consequential demand was duly raised. The assessee discharged the entire tax liability on 13.06.2023 and thereafter filed Form