9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (11) TMI 34X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t that the assessee had credited its profit and loss account with a sum of Rs. 5,37,909 representing the estimated amount of exchange difference, the Tribunal is right in law and fact in holding that no income accrued to the assessee or arose to the assessee as a result of fluctuations in the foreign exchange rate and in deleting the addition of Rs. 5,37,909 ?" I. T. R. No. 153 of 1995 : "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is entitled to weighted deduction on the commission paid by it abroad in respect of its exports ?" For the same assessment year, two reference applications were filed as there were two appeals before the Tribunal, one by the assessee and the other by the Revenue in respect of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he prevailing rate on date of shipments." The exchange difference was calculated at the rate prevailing on June 11, 1981, whereas the previous year of the assessee ended on March 31, 1981. The Tribunal held that the exchange difference, as worked out by the assessee, did not relate to the last day of the previous year, but was on an ad hoc basis. It further held that the basic question at issue was whether the entries passed in the books of the assessee, which keeps its accounts on the mercantile system of accounting taking credit for fluctuation in foreign exchange rate have really resulted in accrual of income to the assessee or, in other words, whether any income arose to the assessee as a result of such fluctuation. It was held that n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... igure relating to foreign exchange rate was included. Thereafter, a note was added that the same did not constitute an income and should be excluded. No explanation, whatsoever, has been given except evasively stating that to avoid confusion, the same was included. If that be so, it is not open to the assessee to turn around and say that the same did not form an addition to consideration as sale price. Additionally, the figure did not represent the factual position on the last date of the accounting period, i.e., March 31, 1981, but related to the rate applicable on June 11, 1981. This aspect does not appear to have been considered by the Tribunal. It was for the assessee to show the correctness of the figures and if called upon, to explain ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
