2017 (11) TMI 738 - HC - Income Tax

Allowance of marked to market loss as business expenditure u/s 37(1) - Held that - As perused the said decision of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax 16, Mumbai Vs. M/s. D. Chetan & Co 2016 (10) TMI 629 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT . The same question was considered by the Division Bench and answered against the Appellant Revenue. As of today, the said decision has attained finality. - Decided against revenue

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge to the judgment and order dated 21st August, 2014 made by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
2. Interpretation of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi Vs. Woodward Governor India (P.) Ltd. (2009) 179 Taxman 326 (SC).
3. Justification of allowing the marked to market loss as business expenditure under Section 37(1) of Income Tax Act, 1961.

Analysis:
1. The appellant, represented by Mr. N.C. Mohanty, challenged the judgment and order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 21st August, 2014. The challenge was specifically directed towards the finding recorded in paragraph 7 of the said judgment. The appellant's counsel argued that the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi Vs. Woodward Governor India (P.) Ltd. could be distinguished based on the facts of the present case. However, it was acknowledged that a decision of the Court in Income Tax Appeal No.278 of 2014 (Commissioner of IncomeTax16, Mumbai Vs. M/s. D. Chetan & Co.) was relevant to the matter.

2. The substantial question of law in contention, labeled as Question A, revolved around the justification of allowing the marked to market loss of ?2,28,01,707 as business expenditure under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court examined a previous decision involving the same question in the case of Commissioner of IncomeTax16, Mumbai Vs. M/s. D. Chetan & Co., where the Division Bench ruled against the Appellant - Revenue. The Court noted that the said decision had already achieved finality, indicating that the issue had been conclusively settled.

3. After reviewing the relevant precedents and considering the arguments presented, the Court concluded that no substantial question of law arose in the present appeal. Consequently, the Court found no merit in the Appeal and proceeded to dismiss it. This decision was based on the existing legal framework and the precedents established in previous cases, particularly the decision in Commissioner of IncomeTax16, Mumbai Vs. M/s. D. Chetan & Co., which had already been conclusively determined.