Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai
Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax (It) 2 ... vs Citigroup Global Markets Mauritus ... on 12 March, 2026
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
"I" BENCH MUMBAI
BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER &
HON'BLE SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
IT(IT)A No.8458/Mum/2025
(Assessment Year: 2015-16)
Deputy Commissioner of Vs.Citigroup Global
Income Tax (IT) 2(1)(1), Markets Mauritus
Mumbai Private Limited
519, 5th floor, Kautilya C/o Ernst and Young
Bhavan, BKC Bandra-East, LLP 14 th floor, The
Mumbai-400051 Ruby,29 Senapati
Bapat Marg Dadar
(West),
Mumbai-400028
PAN/GIR No. AAFCS3274C
(Applicant) (Respondent)
Assessee by Shri Pranay Gandhi
Revenue by Shri Krishna Kumar (SR. DR.)
Date of Hearing 02.02.2026
Date of Pronouncement 12.03.2026
आदे श / ORDER
PER SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM:
The present appeal has been filed by the Revenue challenging the impugned order 26.09.2025 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) for the assessment year 2015-16. The following grounds are reproduced below:
2 ITA No.8458/Mum/2025Citigroup Global Mar kets Mauritus Private Li mi ted "1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in allowing the carry forward of entire short term capital loss of Rs.
21,65,62,86,742 which was brought forward from carlier assessment years without appreciating the fact that the same has to be first adjusted against Short Term Capital Gain of current year as per provision of section 74 of the Act.
2. Whether, on the facts and circumstan ces of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in allowing the carry forward of capital loss from earlier years without setting it off with the Short Term Capital Gain of the current year without appreciating the fact that the assessee has sought the benefit of Article 13 of India Mauritius DTAA and it cannot revert back to the provisions of the Act.
3. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) justified in allowing the carry forward of Long term capital loss of the current year without appreciating the fact that the assessee has sought the benefit of Article 13 of India Mauritius DTAA and accordingly the said Long Term Capital Loss are exempt and are not allowable to be carried forward.
4. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CTT (A) out to have considered that income also includes loss as held by Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Hariprasad & Co. Pvt. Ltd. v/s. CIT (Central), Delhi (Equivalent citation 1975 AIR 1982 & 1975 SCC (3) 868) and in the case of Kishorebhai Bhikhabhai Virani Vs. ACIT (Gujrat High Court) 367 ITR 261(Gujrat) 2015)."
2. At the very outset we noticed that there was delay of filing 8 days in filing the appeal before us . Considering the entire factual position as explained before us and also keeping in view the principles laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector Land Acquisition, 3 ITA No.8458/Mum/2025 Citigroup Global Mar kets Mauritus Private Li mi ted Anantnag & ... vs Mst. Katiji & Ors 1987 AIR 1353 (SC) wherein it has been held that where substantial justice is pitted against the technicalities of non-deliberate delay then in that eventuality substantial justice is to be preferred. In our view, the principle of advancing substantial justice is of prime importance, hence, considering the explanation put forth by the assessee by justifiably and properly explaining the delay which occurred in filing the appeal and considering the expression "sufficient cause" liberally we are inclined to condone the delay in filing the appeal before us. Consequently, the delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted to be heard on ground of merits.
3. All the grounds raised by the Revenue are interrelated and interconnected and relates to challenging the order of the learned CIT(A) in allowing the assessee to carry forward entire short-term capital loss which was brought forward from earlier assessment years, therefore we have decided to adjudicate these grounds through present consolidated order.
4. We have heard the counsels for both the parties, perused the material placed before us, the judgments cited before us, and the orders passed by the Revenue authorities. From the records, we noticed that assessee is a tax resident of Mauritius and held valid tax residency certificate (TRC) during the financial year end, 4 ITA No.8458/Mum/2025 Citigroup Global Mar kets Mauritus Private Li mi ted 31.03.2015. The assessee had earned short-term and net long term capital gains, the break-up of the same is tabulated below :
Apart from this assessee had also brought forward short - term capital loss of Rs. 76,30,09,09,315/- from the previous assessment years and the details of the same are reproduced herein below:
5. In respect of the year under consideration the assessee had claimed benefit of Section 90(2) of the Act as the provisions of Article 13(4) of the treaty are more beneficial to the assessee. Thus the entire short -term capital gains of Rs. 2,16,562,86,742/- had been claimed as not taxable in India and the net long-term capital loss incurred amounting to Rs. 17,26,334/- on the sale of securities on which STT is not paid is not carried forward.
Further, the long-term capital gains earned during the year 5 ITA No.8458/Mum/2025 Citigroup Global Mar kets Mauritus Private Li mi ted amounting to INR 7,17,63,59,585 on which STT is paid had been claimed as exempt under section 10(38) of the Act. Accordingly, the assessee has reported total income as 'Nil' in the return of income filed on 30.11.2015.
6. During the assessment years proceedings AO vide order dated 26.12.2018 set off the entire year's brought forward capital losses against the net short -term capital gains earned during the year, which was claimed as exempt under Article 13 of the treaty and had allowed only the balance brought forward capital losses to be carried forward to the future years.
7. Therefore, aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and Ld. CIT(A), based on the submissions filed before him, vide its order dated 26.09.2025 allowed the assessee's appeal and allowed the carry forward of brought forward lossess for AY 2009-10, AY 2012-13, and AY 2014-15 on the settled principle that losses only be set off against income chargeable to tax. It was submitted that brought forward short-term capital loss u/S 74 of the Act can be adjusted only against short-term capital gain or long-term capital gains which is taxable under the Act. Since it was found that in the present case, the short-term capital gains earned by the assessee during the year is not chargeable to tax in India due to the overriding provisions of the tax 6 ITA No.8458/Mum/2025 Citigroup Global Mar kets Mauritus Private Li mi ted treaty and accordingly, it was held that such exempt income cannot form the basis for set-off of brought forward losses.
8. From the records we also noticed that the issue raised by the Revenue before us is squarely covered by the decision of the Coordinate Bench of the ITAT in the cases of JP Morgan India Smaller Companies Fund ITA No.1028/Mum/2025 dated 12 June 2025; J. P. Morgan India Investment Company Mauritius Ltd [2022] 143 taxmann.com 82 (Mumbai - Trib.) dated 27 September 2022; in case of Swiss Finance Corporation (Mauritius) Ltd [2023] (146 taxmann.com 203) dated 7 October 2022; in case of Goldman Sachs Investments (Mauritius) Ltd. (ITA No. 2201/Mum/2017) dated 24 September 2020 and in case of Bluebay Mauritius Investment Limited (ITA No. 1369/Mum/2021 and ITA No. 1370/Mum/2021) dated 29 April 2022; Matrix Partners India Investment Holdings, LLC (ITA 3097/Mum/2023) dated 29 January 2025. The relevant extracts of the said dec isions are reproduced as under:
JP Morgan India Smaller Companies Fund (supra ) (Refer Pg. No. 1 to 10 of Legal Paperbook) "10. On perusal of above, we f ind that the CIT(A) granted relief to the Assessee by following the recent decision of the Tribunal, inter alia, in the case of Bay Capital Fund India Funds Ltd. [ITA No. 4475/Mum/2023, dated 20/06/2024, AY.2021 -22] wherein 7 ITA No.8458/Mum/2025 Citigroup Global Mar kets Mauritus Private Li mi ted reference was made to the earlier decision in the case of M/s.
Goldman Sach Investment (Mauritius) Ltd. [ITA No. 2201/Mum/2017, dated 24/09/2020, AY.2013 -2014] and J. P. Morgan India Investment Company Mauritius Ltd. [2023] 198 ITD 392 (Mumbai - Trib.) [2709-2022]. During the course of hearing the Learned Authorised Representative for the Assessee had also placed reliance in decisions forming part of legal paper -book including decision of the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 4, Pune vs. Patni Computer Systems Ltd. [2008] 114 ITD 159 (Pune)/[2007] 109 TTJ 742 (Pune)[29-06-2007]. In the aforesaid decisions the Co -ordinate Benches of the Tribunal have permitted carry forward of the Brought Forward Capital Losses to the subsequent assessment years holding, inter alia, where income is not assessable to tax for a particular assessment year under the provisions of the DTAA, the losses incurred in an earlier assessment year carried forward to the assessment year in question, would be available for set-off against taxable income earned in subsequent assessment years and the same are not to be adjusted against the income not chargeable to tax of the current assessment year. Further, the capital losses permitted to be carm ed forward in a previous assessment years could not be reviewed in the assessment proceedings of a subsequent assessment year
11. In the present case, there was no dispute that the Assessee was entitled to claim the benef it of exemption from tax in India granted by Article 13(4) of the DTAA in respect of capital gains arising during the relevant previous year. The Revenue has also not disputed that the Assessee had exercised option not to avail the provisions of DTAA in case of income tax returns filed for Assessment Years 2012-2013, 2013 2014 and 2014-2015 and had carried forward the capital losses incurred during the respective 8 ITA No.8458/Mum/2025 Citigroup Global Mar kets Mauritus Private Li mi ted previous years. The CIT(A) has returned a f indings that the Assessing Off icer has not disputed the claim of the Assessee that the losses were validly claimed in the return of income for the Assessment Year 2012-2013, 2013-2014 & 2014-2015 and that the same were validly allowed to be carried forward in the assessment years prior to Assessment Year 2016 -2017 The aforesaid f inding has not been controverted by the Revenue in the appellate proceedings before the Tribunal. We have already noted hereinabove that in identical f acts and circumstances, the Co - ordinate Benches of the Tribunal has permitted carry forward of the Brought Forward Capital Losses to the subsequent assessment years. In view of the aforesaid, we f ind merit in the contention of the Ld. Authorised Representative for the Assessee that all the issues raised by the Revenue in the present appeal stand decided against the Revenue and in f avour of the Assessee by the decision of Tribunal in the case of Bay Capital Fund India Funds Ltd. (ITA No 4475/Mum/2023, dated 20/06/2024, AY.2021 -22], M/s. Goldman Sach Investment (Mauritius) Ltd. (ITA No. 2201/Mum/2017, dated 24/09/2020, AY. 2013-2014) and J. P. Morgan India Investment Company Mauritius Ltd. [2023] 198 ITD 392 (Mumbai -Trib.)[27-09-2022). Accordingly, we do not f ind any inf irmity in the order passed by the CIT(A) Ground No. 1, 2 and 3 raised by the Revenue are dismissed."
J. P. Morgan India Investment Company Mauritius Ltd (supra) (Refer Pg. No. 11 to 20 of Legal Paperbook)
12. We have heard the rival submissions and also perused the relevant f indings and material placed on record. The controversy involved in this appeal is, whether in the year in which assessee has claimed benefit of DTAA while claiming exemption from taxation of capital gain as per Article 13(4) of Indian Mauritius DTAA, without setting off of short term capital loss and long term 9 ITA No.8458/Mum/2025 Citigroup Global Mar kets Mauritus Private Li mi ted capital loss from earlier ye ar and be allowed to be carry forward to the subsequent years on the ground that in the earlier years when assessee suffered loss it chose not to claim benef it under DTAA and computed the loss as per domestic la w, Le, under the Income Tax Act
13. First of all, it is well settled principle that the tax treaties allocate taxing rights to the treaty partner i n the following three manners:-
(a) Rights are allocated (only) to the source country in respect of certain income (eg. income from immovable property is taxed in the country where the property is located. In this case the computation of income in the country of residence is of no consequence as the taxing rights are given solely to the country of source. The country of residence gives up the right to f ax the income or alternatively givea full credit of the ta x paid in the country of source
(b) Income is taxed in the country of source and also the country of residence but as the income is taxed in the country of residence, the country of source limits its right to tax the income. In this case, the computation income is also provided in the treaty (eg. Royalties/FTS are taxed on gross basis in the country of source but at a lower rate).
(c) Income is taxed only in the country of the taxpayer's residence. In this case, the country of source gives up its taxing rights of such income entirely and therefore the computation of income in the country of source is immaterial, (eg. Business income in the absence of the Permanent Establishment (PE) when a foreign enterpr ise does not have a PE in India, there is no computation done when the income is reported in India] 10 ITA No.8458/Mum/2025 Citigroup Global Mar kets Mauritus Private Li mi ted
14. In the case of a situation of tax relief, the country where a particular income arises (source country), consciously gives up its taxing rights in respect of a particular income arising from source(s) in that country in f avour of the other treaty partner country (residence country). The residence country may or may not levy tax on the said income, for eg. some countries like Singapore, Hong Kong etc. do not levy tax on the income unless it arises in their own territory, as they follow a 'territorial' mo del of taxation
15. In case of income, where a country consciously gives up its rights to tax 'income' (ie positive income) of resident of the treaty partner arising on its own shores, it automatically does not mean that losses which had arisen in earlier year in the subject country are not f orward. allowed to be carried
16. The said principle of allocation of taxing rights has also been considered and propag ated in various judicial precedents and commentary. ITAT Mumbai in this regard in case of APL Co. Pte. Ltd. (2017) (49 CCH 49) (Mum Trib.) has observed as under........
23. There could however be years where a taxpayer chooses not to claim treaty benef it as we have already noted above that he can do so under the provisions of Section 90(2) of the Act. When he does so, his income will have to be computed under the provisions of the Act f or that year. This will include the provis ions for carry forward of loss.
24. In the present case, Assessee being the resident of Mauritius holding valid TRC is eligible to claim treaty benef its. In this regards, Article 13 of India Mauritius DTAA on Capital gains is noteworthy. The relevant extracts of Article 13 of India - Mauritius treaty are reproduced as under.......
25. Thus, under DTAA between India Mauritius, the taxing rights on capital gains f alling under Article 13(4) is kept with country of 11 ITA No.8458/Mum/2025 Citigroup Global Mar kets Mauritus Private Li mi ted residence, i.e., Mauritius and hence the same is not taxable in country of source, i.e., in India.
26. In the previous year for the Assessment year under appeal (AY 2016-17) the Assessee chose to be governed by the provisions of the tax treaty and consequently the gains eamed in that year were not offered to tax. The question of touching the brought forward capital losses in this Assessment year does not arise as the eligibility to carry these losses forward was determined in the year they were suffered. The entire capital gains earned during the previous year were claimed to not be taxable under the treaty. As a result, the capital losses were carried forward as it is to the subsequent years
27. In the instant case, in the earlier years (A.Y. 2009 -10, Α.Υ. 2011-12 to A.Y. 2014-15) the Assessee had incurred capital losses.
28. Thus, it is for an assessee to examine whether or not, in the light of the applicable legal provisions and in the light of the precise f actual position, the provisions of the income -tax Act are benef icial to him or that of the applicable double taxation avoidance agreement. Thus, these losses were therefore computed under the provisions of the Act, as in those earlier years, the Assessee chose not to be governed by provisions of the treaty for those years but by the provisions of the Act. These provisions included the provisions of section 74 of the Act which deal with carry forward and set off of these losses
29. In so f ar as reliance placed by Ld. DR in the case of R. M. Muthaiah (supra), the Hon'ble Court has clearly held as under......
30. As stated above, the capital gain as per the Indian Mauritius DTAA is taxable in the resident country and the source country has given up its rights to tax the income. The question of computation 12 ITA No.8458/Mum/2025 Citigroup Global Mar kets Mauritus Private Li mi ted in the source country does not therefore arise. Accordingly, the income from capital gains is not taxable in India as per Article 13(4) DTAA and accordingly. the mode of computation income in India as the source country will not arise. If the particular income is not to be taxed at all, the question of including the same under the total income and determining the taxability on the same will not arise and the contention of Ld. DR that the total income as per Act is to be calculated to determine the tax liability and thereaf ter, the benef it is to be given cannot upheld. Accordingly, we hold that the losses which have been brought forward from earlier years will be carried forward to the subsequent years without setting off the same against the gains of the previous year relevant to the assessment year in question for the reason that onc e the assessee has chosen the benef it of DTAA, then the capital gain is not at all taxable in India and therefore, there is no question of setting off of loss from the earlier years. Accordingly, the Cross Objection rais ed by the assessee is allowed."
Swiss Finance Corporation (Mauritius) Ltd [2023] (146 taxmann.com 203) dated 7 October 2022 (Refer page 43 to 48 of legal Paperbook) "9. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. We note that the Assessee had made detailed submission before the CIT(A) which have been reproduced by the CIT(A) in paragraph 5 of the order impugned. The Assessee had placed reliance of the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Goldman Sachs Investments (Mauritius) Ltd. (supra), Dy. CIT v. Patni Computer Systems Ltd. [2008] 114 ITD 159 (Pune) and Flagship Indian Investment Co. (Mauritius) Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [2010] 38 SOT 426/133 TTJ 792 (Mum). The CIT(A) allowed the appeal filed by the Assessee by following the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Goldman Sachs Investments (Mauritius) Ltd. (supra), 13 ITA No.8458/Mum/2025 Citigroup Global Mar kets Mauritus Private Li mi ted wherein the other two decisions of the Tribunal were also considered and rolled open. The relevant extract of the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal reads as under
10 in the present case, there was no dispute that the Assesses was entilled to claim the benef it of exemption from tax in Indie granted by Article 13(4) of the DTAA in respect of Short/f Long Term Capital Gains arising during the relevant previous year. The contention of the Revenue was that the aforesaid benef t of Article 13(4) of DTAA coold only be claimed in respect of net balance Shortitong Term Capital Gains af ter setting off Brought Forward ShortLong Term Capital Gains in terms of section 74 of the Act. The Tribunal had, in the case of Goldman Sachs Investments (Mauntius) Ltd (supra), rejected the aforesaid contention of the Revenue holding that the Assessee was entitled to claim benef it of Article 13/4) of DTAA in respect of the entire cument year Short/Long Term Capital Gains (without s etting of the Brought Forward ShortLong Term Capital Gains) The Tribunal also permitted cecry forward of the Brought Forward Short/Long Term Capital Gaina to the subsequent assessment years holding that the Short/Long Term Capital Loss permitted to be carr ied forward in a previous assessment could not be reviewed in the assessment proceedings of e subsequent assessment year. In view of the aforesand, we f ind ment in the contention of the Ld. Authorised Representative for the Assessee that all the issues rai sed by the Revenue in the present appeal stand desistest in f avour of the Assessee by the decision of Tribunal in the case of Goldman Sachs Investments (Mauritius) Ltd. (supra) Accordingly. we do not f ind any inf irmity in the order passed by the CIT(A) Gro und No. 1, 2 and 3 raised by the Revenue are dismissed."
Goldman Sachs Investments (Mauritius) Ltd. (supra) (Refer Pg. No. 21 to 31 of Legal Paperbook) 14 ITA No.8458/Mum/2025 Citigroup Global Mar kets Mauritus Private Li mi ted "We are unable to comprehend that now when admittedly the short term and long term. capital gains eamed by the assessee from transfer of securities during the year in question are exempt under Article 13 of the India-Mauritius Tax Treaty, where would there be any occasion for seeking adjustment of the brought forward STCL against such exempt income Our aforesaid view is squarely covered by the order of the ITAT, Mumbai in the case of Flagship Indian Investment Company (Mauritius) Ltd. Vs. ADIT (1.7) - 3(2), Mumbai (2010) 133 TTJ 792 (Mum) ......As regards the reliance placed by the id. D.R on the observations of the lower authorities that as the words "income" or "prof its and gains were to include losses also, therefore, now when Sec. 45 of the Act, by virtue of the India-Mauritius tax treaty was rendered unworkable in respect of "capital gains" derived by the assessee from transfer transactions carried out in India, the "capital losses would also not form part of its "total income", and thus, were not required to be computed under the Act. we are afraid the same does not f ind favour with us. Before adverting any further, we may herein reiterate that the DRP vide its order passed u/s 144C(5), dated 21.11.2016, had concluded, that now when the "capital loss" was allowed to be carried forward by the A.O. vide his order passed under Sec. 143(3), dated 19.03.2015 for A.Y 2012 -13, the same could not have thereaf ter been reviewed in the assessment proceedings of any subsequent year. As the said observation of the DRP has not been assailed any further by the revenue in appeal before us, the same thus had attained finality. Now coming to the claim of the revenue that as Sec. 45 of the Act, by virtue of India - Mauritius tax treaty was rendered unworkable in respect of capital gains" derived by the assessee from transfer of securities in India, therefore, the "capital losses would also not f orm part of the assessee's "total income, and thus, could not be computed under the Act, we are afraid does not f ind favour with us. Apropos the aforesaid observation of the A. O, we are of the considered view that the same had been arrived at by losing sight of the fact that 15 ITA No.8458/Mum/2025 Citigroup Global Mar kets Mauritus Private Li mi ted the "capital losses in question had been brought forward from the earlier years and had been determined and allowed to b e carried forward by the A. O while framing the assessment f or A.Y 2012 - 13, vide his order passed u/s 143(3), date 19.03.2015, and had not arisen during the year under consideration Le A.Y 2013 -14 Accordingly, the claim of the A.O that the "capital losses"
t/f orward from the earlier years. pertaining to a source of income that was exempt f rom tax was thus not to be carried forward to the subsequent years, being devoid of any merit, is thus rejected. At this stage, we may herein observe that it is for the as sessee to examine whether or not in the light of the applicable legal provisions and the precise f actual position the provisions of the IT Act are benef icial to him or that of the applicable DTAA. In any case, the tax treaty cannot be thrust upon an assess ee. In case the assessee during one year does not opt for the tax treaty, it would not be precluded from availing the benefits of the said treaty in the subsequent years. Our aforesaid view is fortif ied by the order of the ITAT, Pune in DCIT Vs. Patni Computer Systems Ltd. (2008) 114 ITD 159 (Pune). We thus in terms of our aforesaid observations, not being able to persuade ourselves to subscribe to the view taken by the A.O/DRP, who as noticed by us hereinabove had sought adjustment of the b/forward STCL ag ainst the exempt 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..."
Bluebay Mauritius Investment Limited (supra) (Refer Pg. No. 49 to 54 of Legal Paperbook) "3.2. We f ind that the issue in dispute is no longer res integra in view of the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Goldman Sachs Investments (Mauritius) Ltd., referred to supra. The f acts 16 ITA No.8458/Mum/2025 Citigroup Global Mar kets Mauritus Private Li mi ted prevailing in Goldman Sachs Investments (Mauritius) Ltd., and the action of the Id. AO in that case are as under.....
3.3. The f indings of the Tribunal are as under - .....................................
3.4. Respectf ully following the aforesaid decision, we do not f ind any inf irmity in the order of id. CIT(A) g ranting relief to the assessee"
Matrix Partners India Investment Holdings, LLC [2025] 173 taxmann.com 727 (Mumbai - Trib.) (supra) (Refer Pg. No. 77 to 90 of Legal Paperbook) "7.1. Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case of CIT v. M. N. Raigi reported in [1949] 17 ITR 180 (Bombay) considered as to whether share income of a partner which does not form part of the total income, is to be added to the total income in order to determine the rate at which income tax was payable by the partner. Section 16 of Income tax Act 1922, corresponding to section 66 of the Income tax Act 1961 was subject matter for consideration in the aforesaid decision. Hon'ble Court af ter analysing the scheme of computation observed and held as under
7.2. It is thus clear from the above observation f rom the Hon'ble Bombay high court that, income does not form part of the total income do not enter the computation of the total income at all applying the above principle above ratio to the present f acts of the case the capital gains that are already exempt under the DTAA which are binding on the parties being exempt in India, cannot enter the computation of total income of assessee in India.
13. Further, the Hon'ble Mumbai Tribunal in case of Flagship India Investment Co.(Mauritius) Ltd. (2010) (133 TTJ 792) (refer page 74 17 ITA No.8458/Mum/2025 Citigroup Global Mar kets Mauritus Private Li mi ted to 76 of legal PB) has held that in the absence of taxable income in the subsequent year, the capital lo ss brought forward by the assessee (a Mauritius Company) was allowed to be carried forward to the subsequent years without any set off of non -taxable gains of the relevant previous year. The said decision was also approved by the Hon'ble Mumbai Tribunal in Goldman Sachs Investments (Mauritius) Ltd. (supra)
14. Similar view has also been taken by co -ordinate bench of Tribunal in following cases:
Goldman Sachs (Singapore) Pte I.T.A. No. 2062/Mum/2025 dated 10 October 2025 (refer page 32 to 42 of legal PB) Bluebay Mauritius Investment Ltd [2025] (173 taxmann.com
685) dated 29 April 2022 (refer page 49 to 54 of legal PB) BNS Asia Ltd (ITA No. 723/Mum/2025); (ITA No. 724/Mum/2025); (ITA No. 734/Mum/2025) dated 28 March 2025 (refer page 55 to 62 of legal PB) Robeco Institutioneel Emerging Markets Fonds ITA No. 4059/MUM/2024 dated 29 January 2025 (refer page 63 to 73 of legal PB)
15. Thus, the Assessee's case is squarely covered by the aforesaid decisions and thus, the claim made by the Assessee to carry forward the brought f orward capital losses, to subsequent years, should be allowed, without setting off of capital gains earned during the year under consideration which are not taxable in India by virtue of Article 13(4) of India Mauritius DTAA
9. Therefore, considering the totality of the facts of the present case and also the decisions of the Coordinate Benches of the 18 ITA No.8458/Mum/2025 Citigroup Global Mar kets Mauritus Private Li mi ted ITAT, we are of the view that the assessee's case is squarely covered by the above-mentioned decisions.
10. Respectfully following the doctrine of binding precedent and maintaining judicial consistency, we uphold the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and reject the grounds raised by the Revenue.
11. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed with no order as to costs.
Order pronounced in the open court on 12.03.2026 Sd/- Sd/-
(PRABHASH SHANKAR) (SANDEEP GOSAIN)
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
Mumbai, Dated 12/03/2026
आदे श की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order forwarded to :
1. अपीलार्थी / The Appellant
2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent.
3. सं बंधित आयकर आयु क्त / The CIT(A)
4. आयकर आयु क्त(अपील) / Concerned CIT
5. धिभागीय प्रधतधिधि, आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण,मु म्बई/ DR, ITAT, Mumbai
6. गार्ड फाईल / Guard file.
/ आदे शानुसार BY ORDER, सत्याधपत प्रधत //True Copy// उि/सहायक िंजीकार ( Asst. Registrar) आयकर अिीिीय अतिकरण, मुम्बई / ITAT, Mumbai