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

10 of the appeal of the assessee and direct the assessing officer to allow set-off of short-term capital loss suffered by the assessee against short-term capital gain of Rs. 791,221/-.” 17. We find that similar findings have been rendered by the Co-ordinate Benches of the Tribunal in favour of the taxpayer in the following decisions

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

10 of the appeal of the assessee and direct the assessing officer to allow set-off of short-term capital loss suffered by the assessee against short-term capital gain of Rs. 791,221/-.” 17. We find that similar findings have been rendered by the Co-ordinate Benches of the Tribunal in favour of the taxpayer in the following decisions

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)

38), read with sections 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 10

DCIT CEN 5 3, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are allowed partly

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

capital gains of ₹106,35,11,223/- under section 10(38) of the Act. under section 10(38) of the Act. The Assessing

DCIT CEN 5 3, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are allowed partly

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

capital gains of ₹106,35,11,223/- under section 10(38) of the Act. under section 10(38) of the Act. The Assessing

DCIT CEN 5 3, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are allowed partly

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

capital gains of ₹106,35,11,223/- under section 10(38) of the Act. under section 10(38) of the Act. The Assessing

DCIT CEN 5 3, MUMBAI vs. ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are allowed partly

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

capital gains of ₹106,35,11,223/- under section 10(38) of the Act. under section 10(38) of the Act. The Assessing

TATA COMMUNICATIONS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI

In the result, the question of law referred to the Special Bench is answered in favour of the assessee

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Arun Khodpiatata Communications Limited Pr. Cit, Videsh Sanchar Bhavan, Mumbai-1 Vs. M. G. Road, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 Pan/Gir No. Aaacv 2808 C (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri J. D. Mistri Respondent By : Shri Ritesh Misra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 25.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.09.2025 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey: The Present Appeal, At The Instance Of The Assessee, Assails Order Dated 21.03.2025, Passed U/S. 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ For Short), By Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (‘Ld. Pcit’ For Short), Pertaining To The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2018-19. 2. Though The Assessee Has Raised Multiple Grounds, Both On Jurisdictional Issues As Well As On Merits, However, There Is Consensus Between The Parties That The Appeal Can Be Decided On Merits, In Which Event, There Is No Need To Go Into Various Other Issues Raised In Appeal.

10 Tata Communications Limited vs. Pr. CIT off against long term capital loss. This judgment again clarifies the interpretation of section 50 and concept of a long term capital asset. 29. Again in another judgment Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT vs Pursarth Trading Co. Pvt Ltd in Income Tax appeal no. 123 of 2013 judgment an order dated

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)

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

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

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

capital gain on sale of shares under\nsection 10(38) of the Act and made addition of total sale\nconsideration under section

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

10 August, 2005 and the four Deeds of Confirmation all dated 28th November, 2007 and the four Deeds of Apartment three dated 19th October, 2013 and one dated 25th November, 2013 all executed by the Plaintiff through Defendant No.1 and Defendant No. 1 and Defendant No.2 in respect of the said Flats are valid, subsisting and binding upon the Plaintiff

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)

10,09,36,049 as against INR 106,223,167 as claimed by the Appellant in the return of income. 8. Erred in levying interest under section 234B and section 234C of the Act amounting to INR 26,946,836 and INR.583,049 respectively. Initiating penalty proceedings under section 270A of the Act. 9. Erred in initiating penalty under section

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)

10,09,36,049 as against INR 106,223,167 as claimed by the Appellant in the return of income. 8. Erred in levying interest under section 234B and section 234C of the Act amounting to INR 26,946,836 and INR.583,049 respectively. Initiating penalty proceedings under section 270A of the Act. 9. Erred in initiating penalty under section