Bombay High Court
Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax ... vs M/S. International Gold Company Ltd on 27 February, 2019
Author: M.S.Sanklecha
Bench: Akil Kureshi, M.S.Sanklecha
itxa-1827-2016.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 1827 OF 2016
The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax
(Central)-4 .. Appellant.
v/s.
M/s. International Gold Company Ltd., .. Respondent.
Mr. Tejveer Singh, for the Appellant.
Mr. A. K. Jasani, for the Respondent.
CORAM: AKIL KURESHI &
M.S.SANKLECHA, JJ.
DATE : 27th FEBRUARY, 2019.
P.C:-
This Appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act), challenges the order dated 7th October, 2015 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal). The impugned order dated 7th October, 2015 is in respect of Assessment Year 2009-10.
2 The Revenue urges the following question of law for our consideration:
" Whether on the facts and in the circumstance of the case and in law, the Tribunal failed to appreciate that loss due to revaluation of forward exchange contracts being mark to market loss was only notional and contingent in nature, and therefore, cannot be set off against taxable income as per CBDT instruction 03/2010 dated 23.03.2010?"
S.R.JOSHI 1 of 2
::: Uploaded on - 28/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 22/03/2019 00:46:39 :::
itxa-1827-2016.odt
3 It is an agreed position between the parties that the issue
raised herein stands concluded against the Appellant-Revenue by the decision of this Court in CIT v/s. M/s. D. Chetan & Co., (ITXA No. 278 of 2014) dated 1st October, 2016.
4 However, Mr.Tejveer Singh, learned Counsel for the Revenue states that in view of the Instruction No.3 of 2010 dated 23rd March, 2010, the issued by the CBDT contend that, loss in such case is notional and contingent in nature and same should be added but for the purpose of computing taxable income. The aforesaid submission was the basis of the order of the Assessing Officer and not accepted by this Court in M/s. D. Chetan & Co., (supra). Therefore, the above Circular/ Instruction would not have any application in the face of the decision of this Court in M/s. D.Chetan &Co., (supra).
5 In the above view, the question as proposed, does not give rise to any substantial question of law. Thus, not entertained.
6 Accordingly, Appeal dismissed. No order as to costs.
(M.S.SANKLECHA,J.) (AKIL KURESHI,J.)
S.R.JOSHI 2 of 2
::: Uploaded on - 28/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 22/03/2019 00:46:39 :::