9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (8) TMI 1471X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... I.T.A. No. 764/M/2014, I.T.A. No. 765/M/2014 - - - Dated:- 5-8-2015 - SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER For the Appellant : Mrs. Aarti Vissanji For the Respondent : Shri S.K. Mahapatra, DR ORDER PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM: There are two appeals under consideration. Both these appeals are filed by the Revenue against the common order of the CIT (A)-27, Mumbai, dated 6.11.2013 for the assessment years 2009-2010 and 2010-2011. Since, the issues raised in both the appeals are identical, therefore, for the sake of convenience, they are clubbed, heard combinedly and disposed of in this consolidated order. 2. Since, the Revenue raised the identical Grounds in both the appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... authority, after considering the submissions of the assessee, CIT (A) held that the assessee is eligible for incurring of losses of business by way of the mark to market‟ losses on forward contract and partly allowed the appeal. Aggrieved with the said decision of the CIT (A), Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the above mentioned grounds. 5. During the proceedings before us, Ld Counsel for the assessee brought our attention to the above Grounds and mentioned that the only issue involved in these appeals relates to the allowability of Mark-to-Market loss on revaluation of outstanding forward contracts on the closure date of accounting year on notional basis. In this regard, Ld Counsel brought our attention to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d 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 .....At present, it is not the AO‟s case that the impugned transaction is speculative in nature. Further, the aforesaid issue of allowing the loss on account of revaluation of pending forward contracts was considered by the Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai Bench in the case of M/s. Bhavani Gems vs. ACIT CC-35, in ITA No.2855/Mum/2010 dated 30.3.2011 for the AY 2006-2007 and the said loss was allowed as business loss and the issue was held to be covered by Special Bench decision in the case of DCIT vs. Bank of Bahrai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
