9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (11) TMI 82X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3) That the ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting disallowance of Forex loss of Rs. 2,12,05,000/-." Ground No. 1:- 3. This ground relates to deleting of addition of Rs. 89,72,884/- made Under Section 14A r.w.r. 8D. At the very outset of the hearing of the matter the Ld. Counsel appearing for the assessee submitted before us that the issue is squarely covered in assessee's own case by an order dated 28.05.2019 in appeal preferred by the Revenue being ITA No. 2077/Ahd/2017 with Cross Objection No. 55/Ahd/2018 for A.Y. 2013-14. The copy of the said order dated 28.05.2019 has also been submitted before us. The assessee prayed for the similar relief on the identical issue. 4. The Ld. DR, however, has not raised any serious objection to that of the contentions made by the Ld. AR. 5. Heard the parties and perused the relevant material available on record including the order passed by the Hon'ble Tribunal in ITA No. 2077/Ahd/2017 with Cross Objection No. 55/Ahd/2018 for A.Y. 2013-14 the relevant portion whereof is reproduced hereunder below:- "3. At the very outset, the ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that in the case of CIT Vs. Corrtech Energy Ltd., 372 ITR 9 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... able to exempt income as contemplated in clause (f) to Explanation 1 to section 115JB(2) could be arrived at by resorting to provisions of section 14A or not. The department, contention, is that the object of section 14A and clause (f) to Explanation 1 to section 115JB(2) is same and, therefore, it cannot be disputed that section 14A can be resorted to for finding out the expenditure relatable to any income which is exempt. [Para 6.2] ■ When the question arises as to the applicability of similar provisions in different parts of the statute, then it is not only legitimate but proper to read both the provisions in their context. If context is same, different meaning cannot be assigned. It is to be found out that what mischief was intended to be remedied by inserting a particular section. The intention of the legislature once is manifested in a particular section in the statute then said intention cannot be given a different meaning, if a similar provision has been incorporated in a different section in the statute. The intention of the Legislature must be found out by reading the statute as a whole. [Para 6.3] ■ Literal meaning cannot always be followed logically, bec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rials available on record. We have also carefully considered the judgment and order passed by the ld. Co-ordinate Bench in ITA No. 2077/Ahd/2017 with Cross Objection No. 55/Ahd/2018 for A.Y. 2013-14 the relevant portion whereof is as follows:- "4. In the next ground of the Revenue has pleaded that the ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting disallowance of Forex loss of Rs. 1,70,45,000/-. 5. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee has filed its return of income on 28.11.2013 declaring total income at NIL after claiming unabsorbed depreciation loss of Rs. 23,48,193/- for the current year. On scrutiny of the accounts, the ld.AO found that has debited a sum of Rs. 170.45 lakhs in the profit & loss account. He confronted the assessee as to why this loss should not be disallowed. The assessee filed written submissions. The ld.AO was not convinced with the explanation of the assessee and disallowed its claim. Dissatisfied with the disallowance, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld.CIT(A). It has filed written submissions justifying the allowance of this loss, and how this loss has been worked out by it. The assessee has compiled details in tabular form and all such ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the loss was arising out of the foreign currency loan in respect of fixed assets. (ii) The said loss was not a realized one and occurred on account of revaluation of amount parked in deposits as per the submission of the assessee, and therefore, the same was notional loss and not allowable. (iii) The case law relied upon by the assessee is not applicable in the case of the assessee, as the facts of the case of the assessee company are different of the case it has relied upon. The difference on account of conversion of foreign currency loan taken in respect of fixed assets is very much liable to be treated as per the provisions of Section 43A of the I. T. Act. As can be observed from the above submitted facts submitted during of the course of Assessment Proceedings and the facts forming the germane of addition the Id. Assessing Officer rejected the appellant's claim contending that it is not a realized one and occurred on account of revaluation of amount parked in deposits and treated the same as notional loss. In this respect it is submitted that that the Id. Assessing Officer failed to consider the fact that the foreign exchange fluctuation loss of Rs. 170.45 lakhs is n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion amounted to Rs. 5,28,77,147/- (working of the same is provided below in Table 2) and as the entire loan proceeds were utilized for the acquisition of the asset therefore no portion of foreign exchange loss on the loan was transferred to FCMITDA during the year under consideration. 2. In respect of loans from State Bank of India, it is stated that the Total Loss on account of the Foreign Exchange Fluctuation amounted to Rs. 8,01,05,450/- (working of the same is provided below in Table 3) and as the appellant h;id partly utilized such loan for acquisition or construction of fixed assets and such portion is capitalized and the unutilized portion of loan is parked as fixed deposits, the foreign exchange loss arising on this ECB utilized for parking of fixed deposit was transferred to FCMITDA. In accordance with the Accounting Treatment mentioned in Para 46A and the factual matrix of the case, the appellant has arrived at the quantum of the Forex Loss debited in the P&L Account at Rs. 170.45 lakhs in the following manner: 6. Apart from the above explanation, the assessee has appraised the ld.CIT(A) about the quantification of such loss. All these details in tabular form have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ive while deleting the disallowance. The AO was of the view that such loss arose out of foreign currency loan acquired in respect of fixed assets. He failed to appreciate real transaction, and how the loss has been worked out by the assessee. In earlier year, the Tribunal has upheld deletion, and therefore, we do not see any reason to interfere in the order of the ld.CIT(A)." 13. In the absence of any change circumstances respectively relying upon the order passed by the Ld. Tribunal we do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) in favour of the assessee on the identical issue and hence, the same is hereby confirmed. In the result, this ground of appeal preferred by the Revenue is dismissed. 14. In the result, Revenue's appeal is dismissed. Cross Objection No. 29/Ahd/201(A.Y. 2014-15):- 15. By and under the cross objection the assessee has challenged the order passed by the Ld. First Appellate Authority in confirming the finding of the AO that the employees' contribution amounting to Rs. 2,55,876/- to Provident Fund and ESIC Act not allowable Under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act. The assessee, in this regard, relied upon the judgment passed by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
