9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (1) TMI 615 - AT - Income TaxLoss on Forward Contracts in foreign exchange - assessee does not deal in foreign exchange and is a diamond merchant - Held that - The appellant has cancelled some of its foreign exchange forward contracts before the due date, but such transactions has resulted in net profit. For the sake of discussion, even if such transactions are held to be speculative in nature simply because the appellant has cancelled these transactions before the maturity date, still it does not have any adverse effect on revenue because net result of such transactions is profit and not the loss. Therefore, after considering the totality and circumstances of the instant case as well as the principle laid down by the Hon ble ITAT in appellant s own case in A.Y.2009-10, it is noted that the net loss of the appellant is in respect of the transactions of only those forward contracts which was incurred on settlement on or after due date of the contracts. Since such transactions were carried out in the normal course of business to guard against the fluctuation in foreign exchange such transactions are in nature of hedging transactions, loss on which is genuinely business loss, hence the AO is directed to allow the same.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the loss on Forward Contracts in foreign exchange by a diamond merchant should be allowed as a business loss. 2. Whether the CIT(A) erred in not following the ITAT decision in the case of M/s. Vinodkumar Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. 3. Whether the loss on cancellation of Forward Contracts in foreign exchange should be allowed when the assessee was unable to establish a one-to-one relation between its export invoices and foreign currency transactions. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Loss on Forward Contracts in Foreign Exchange: The assessee, engaged in the business of import and export of diamonds, incurred a loss of ?85,88,209 on the cancellation of forward contracts. The assessee argued that this loss should be considered a normal business loss under Section 43(5)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and not a speculation loss. The AO disallowed the loss, treating it as a speculation loss under Section 43(5) of the Act, stating that the transactions did not comply with the conditions of sub-clause (d) and were not hedging transactions. The CIT(A) allowed the appeal, following the ITAT's decision in the assessee’s own case for the previous assessment year, treating the losses as genuine business losses. The Tribunal upheld this view, emphasizing that the forward contracts were integral to the assessee's business of export and import of diamonds and aimed at hedging against foreign exchange fluctuations. 2. Non-following of ITAT Decision in Vinodkumar Diamonds Pvt. Ltd.: The Revenue contended that the CIT(A) erred by not following the ITAT's decision in the case of M/s. Vinodkumar Diamonds Pvt. Ltd., where a similar issue was decided in favor of the Revenue. The Tribunal noted that the facts of the assessee’s case were similar to those in the preceding assessment year, where the ITAT had already adjudicated the issue in favor of the assessee. Thus, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, emphasizing consistency with its prior decision in the assessee’s own case. 3. One-to-One Relation Between Export Invoices and Foreign Currency Transactions: The AO argued that the assessee failed to establish a one-to-one relation between its export invoices and the foreign currency transactions, which is essential for the transactions to be considered hedging. The CIT(A) and the Tribunal, however, held that such a precise correlation is not required. The Tribunal observed that the total value of forward contracts did not exceed the total exports and outstanding receivables, thus constituting hedging transactions. The Tribunal further noted that the premature cancellation of some contracts did not alter the nature of the transactions as hedging transactions, provided the assessee had a valid explanation for such cancellations. Conclusion: The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming the CIT(A)'s decision to allow the loss on forward contracts as a business loss. The Tribunal emphasized the integral nature of the forward contracts to the assessee's business and the consistency with its prior decision in the assessee’s own case for the preceding assessment year. The Tribunal also clarified that a one-to-one correlation between export invoices and forward contracts is not mandatory for the transactions to be considered hedging.
|
