<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2025 (4) TMI 860 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=768946</link>
    <description>Treaty-protected long-term capital gains on grandfathered shares under Article 13(4) of the India-Mauritius DTAA could not be reduced by setting off capital losses from non-grandfathered share transactions, because section 90(2) preserved the treaty exemption. The Tribunal reasoned that set-off under sections 70 and 74 presupposes taxable income under the head &quot;Capital Gains&quot;; exempt treaty income is not available for adjustment. It followed earlier coordinate bench rulings that exempt capital gains cannot be offset against other losses. The losses themselves remained eligible for carry forward under the Act, and the set-off reflected in the intimation was held unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 08 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 16 Apr 2025 08:38:44 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=814713" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (4) TMI 860 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=768946</link>
      <description>Treaty-protected long-term capital gains on grandfathered shares under Article 13(4) of the India-Mauritius DTAA could not be reduced by setting off capital losses from non-grandfathered share transactions, because section 90(2) preserved the treaty exemption. The Tribunal reasoned that set-off under sections 70 and 74 presupposes taxable income under the head &quot;Capital Gains&quot;; exempt treaty income is not available for adjustment. It followed earlier coordinate bench rulings that exempt capital gains cannot be offset against other losses. The losses themselves remained eligible for carry forward under the Act, and the set-off reflected in the intimation was held unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 08 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=768946</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>