9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (7) TMI 1109X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... partment against the order of the CIT(A)-10 Mumbai dated 11.07.2011, wherein the Department has raised the following grounds. 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in granting the relief of Article-13 of India-Singapore DTAA to the assessee for the Gains on cancellation of Forward Foreign Exchange Contracts as Capital Gains ignoring provisions of Artic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... In the year under consideration, the assessee earned capital gains on shares which, it claimed were not taxable in India, as the assessee claimed exemption under section 10(38) in the computation of income on the said income. Further in the computation, the assessee declared a loss of ₹ 80,83,12,800/- towards foreign exchange contracts, which the assessee claimed to be allowed to be carried ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... AY 2005-06 and AY 2006-07 in the case of the appellant itself, had held that income from FFCs could be either capital gains or business income, but certainly not income from other sources. The only difference in the facts of the assessment year under consideration is that there is a loss reported this year, in lieu of the income reported in the earlier two assessment years. This change does not a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me from other sources . 6. Against this decision, the Department is in appeal before the ITAT, in the current year. 7. At the time of hearing the Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the assessee pointed out that the issue is covered in its own order in ITA No. 2954/Mum/2010 4583/Mum/2009 for assessment years 2006-07 2005-06, (wherein one of us, is the party of the order). It was held ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... acts of the instant case are exactly the same as that in the preceding years, respectfully, following the order of the coordinate Bench in the assessee s own case, as mentioned above, we do not find any reason to disturb the finding of the CIT(A). 9. We therefore reject ground no. 1, in the appeal filed by the department. Grounds no. 2 and 3, being general, are rejected as well. 10. In the r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
