9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (7) TMI 1293X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... venue on 5.4.2013 is against the order of CIT (A)- 27, Mumbai dated 28.1.2012 for the assessment year 2009-2010. 2. In this appeal, Revenue raised the following ground which reads as under: "1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT (A) has erred in holding that Mark-to-Market loss of Rs. 1,06,90,750/- arising on re-valuation of forward contract agreeme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he decision of the Special Bench in the case of DCIT vs. Bank of Bahrain. 4. We have heard the Ld DR and perused the orders of the AO as well as the CIT (A) and find that the CIT (A) has discussed the issue at length vide para 6 of the impugned order. For the sake of completeness of this order, relevant portion from the said para 6 of the CIT (A)'s order is reproduced here under. "6...........A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ear-end is an allowable business loss. Appellant succeeds on this ground." 5. From the above, it is evident that the Mark-to-Market gain or loss is held as allowable gain or loss as the case may be. In the instant case, loss of Rs. 1,06,90,750/- arising on re-valuation of forward contract agreements on 31st March, 2009. Thus, the order of the CIT (A) is fair and reasonable and it does not call f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
