9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (11) TMI 417 - AT - Income TaxTreatment of hedging loss as speculation loss or business loss - Held that - Assessee is not a dealer in foreign exchange but an exporter of commodities and assessee had entered into forward contracts with banks in respect of foreign exchange but some of these contracts could not be honoured by the assessee for which it has to pay and which was debited to the P&L Account and claimed the same as business loss/hedging loss. In order to hedge against losses, the assessee had booked foreign exchange in the forward market with the bank but the export contract entered into by the assessee for export of commodities in some cases failed, the assessee is entitled to claim for deduction of loss as a business loss. Accordingly, respectfully following Hon ble jurisdictional High court in the case of Soorajmull Nagarmull 1980 (9) TMI 69 - CALCUTTA High Court we allow the claim of the assessee. - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the loss incurred on foreign exchange contracts should be treated as business loss or speculation loss. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Treatment of Loss Incurred on Foreign Exchange Contracts: The primary issue in this appeal was whether the loss incurred by the assessee on foreign exchange contracts should be treated as a business loss or a speculation loss. The assessee, engaged in the trading and export of agro products, entered into forward contracts in foreign exchange to hedge against fluctuations in foreign exchange rates. The assessee claimed a total loss of Rs. 3,87,50,017, which included Rs. 3,78,44,872 from the cancellation of forward contracts and Rs. 9,05,145 from foreign exchange differences. The Assessing Officer (AO) and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] treated this loss as speculation loss under Section 43(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and disallowed the claim for it being a business loss. 2. Assessee's Arguments: The assessee argued that the forward contracts were entered into as part of the export business to hedge against exchange rate fluctuations and not for speculative purposes. It was highlighted that the forward contracts were booked based on confirmed export orders and were a necessary incident of the export business. The assessee provided detailed evidence, including export orders and relevant RBI guidelines, to support the claim that the forward contracts were for hedging purposes. 3. Revenue's Arguments: The Revenue contended that the assessee failed to provide sufficient documentary evidence to prove that the forward contracts were linked to specific export orders. The AO and CIT(A) observed that there was no reasonable equivalence between the period and amount of the forward contracts and the export orders. They concluded that the forward contracts constituted an independent business activity, and the resultant loss should be treated as speculation loss. 4. Tribunal's Findings: The Tribunal found that the assessee had indeed entered into forward contracts based on confirmed export orders and that the contracts were a necessary incident of the export business. It was noted that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence, including certified copies of export orders, to substantiate the claim. The Tribunal observed that the forward contracts were booked in accordance with RBI guidelines and were intended to hedge against exchange rate fluctuations, not for speculative purposes. 5. Legal Precedents: The Tribunal referred to the judgments of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in CIT v. Soorajmull Nagarmull (1981) 129 ITR 169 (Cal) and the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in CIT v. Badridas Gauridu (P) Ltd. (2003) 261 ITR 256 (Bom). In these cases, it was held that losses incurred on forward contracts entered into for hedging purposes in the regular course of business should be treated as business losses and not speculative losses. The Tribunal found the facts of the present case to be similar and followed these precedents. 6. Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that the loss incurred by the assessee on the cancellation of forward contracts was a business loss and not a speculation loss. It held that the assessee was entitled to claim the loss as a business expenditure. The appeal of the assessee was allowed, and the order of the CIT(A) was set aside. Final Judgment: The appeal of the assessee was allowed, and the loss incurred on forward contracts was treated as a business loss. The Tribunal's order was pronounced in the open court on 29.10.2015.
|
