9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 1232X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mport, manufacture, sale and export of diamonds. We shall first take up the appeal filed by the assessee for A.Y. 2009-10. The Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee has claimed a sum of Rs. 5,03,84,146/- as deduction on account of loss arising on revaluation of foreign exchange forward contracts outstanding as on 31.3.2009. The assessee explained the same as loss arising on account of mark to market revaluation of forward contracts as per rupee value of US dollar as on 31.3.2009. The assessee placed reliance on account of Accounting Standard 11 issued by ICAI and also on the decision rendered in the case of Woodward Governor India Pvt. Ltd. (312 ITR 254) (SC) and DCIT Vs. Bank of Bahrain & Kuwait (ITA No. 4404 & 1883/Mum/2004) in orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to defend the order of the AO on an altogether different ground like speculation loss. Learned AR further submitted that Hon'ble Bombay High Court has held in the case of CIT Vs. M/s. D. Chetan & Co. (IT Appeal No. 278 of 2014 dated 1.10.2016) that the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court rendered in the case of CIT Vs.Badridas Garidu (P) Ltd. (2004) 134 Taxman 376) was not brought to the notice of the Tribunal when it rendered its decision in the case of S. Vinodkumar Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. (supra). Accordingly, learned AR submitted that the Revenue is not justified in taking support of decision rendered in the case of S. Vinodkumar Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. (supra) when decision rendered by Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court as well as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n support of the following decisions in order to hold that the above said claim of the assessee cannot be considered as a Notional loss:- a) Woodward Governnor India P. Ltd. (312 ITR 254) b) DCIT Vs. Bank of Bahrain and Kuwait (2010) 41 SOT 290 c) Bharat Earth Movers Vs. CIT (245 ITR 428) d) ONGC Vs. CIT (322 ITR 180) 8. The Ld D.R relied upon the decision rendered by the co-ordinate bench in the case of S. Vinodkumar Diamonds Pvt. Ltd (supra). However, as pointed out by Ld D.R, the above said decision cannot be taken support of in view of the observations made by Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of M/s. D. Chetan & Co.(supra). Further, the Ld A.R has stated that the assessee has been following this practice of valuing in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
