9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (7) TMI 212X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessing officer had never disallowed 'Mark to Market' loss of ₹ 30,31,633/. In the absence of any fact with regard to the nature of the said transaction, it would not be possible to accept the contention of the revenue with regard to 'Mark to Market' loss. There is no basis to arrive at such conclusion in the facts of the present case. Disallowance of rent expenditure - Held that:- As observed by the Tribunal that the assessee was running his business in the said premises and the said expenditure has been incurred by the assessee for carrying on his business. The said finding is a finding of fact. No substantial question of law arise - Income Tax Appeal No. 1215 of 2014, Income Tax Appeal No. 1554 of 2014 - - - Dated:- 21-6 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot pertain to income shown and are not wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business as required under the provisions of Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act ? (B) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in allowing the claim of provision for Mark to Market loss without appreciating that the same was a notional and contingent loss which had not crystallized in the previous year relevant to Assessment Year 2007-08. ? 3. The appeal bearing No.1215 of 2014 pertains to the assessment year 2007-2008. 4. Mr. Malhotra, learned Counsel for the Revenue submits that the Tribunal was not justified in allowing the claim of provision for 'Mark to Market' loss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppreciate the fact that the expenditure claimed by the assessee had not been spent for earning declared income shown and the rented premises was not wholly and exclusively used for the purpose of business as required under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act,1961. The submission of the assessee itself shows that the purpose for which the said business was taken on rent had never commenced. 6. Mr.Agarwal, learned Counsel for the respondent submits that the case of the respondent with regard to 'Mark to Market loss' is covered by the judgment of the Apex Court in the case Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Woodward Governor India P.Ltd. (supra). The loss suffered by the assessee on account of fluctuation of the rates as on the date o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is confirmed in fact the assessing officer had never disallowed 'Mark to Market' loss of ₹ 30,31,633/. In the absence of any fact with regard to the nature of the said transaction, it would not be possible to accept the contention of the revenue with regard to 'Mark to Market' loss. There is no basis to arrive at such conclusion in the facts of the present case. 9. With regard to the deduction allowed on account of rent, it has been observed by the Tribunal that the assessee was running his business in the said premises and the said expenditure has been incurred by the assessee for carrying on his business. The said finding is a finding of fact. 10. In the light of the above, no substantial question of law arise. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
