9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 2081X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he comparable adopted by the TPO and GECL has negligible gold content of about 1.10%. Accordingly, CIT(A) was justified in rejecting GECL which was not comparable with the assessee on account of product dissimilarity. Fresh facts have been contended before the learned CIT(A), without giving opportunity to the A.O./TPO - HELD THAT:- As gone through the orders of the authorities below and observed that ground of appeal does not point out to any particular facts, which are not there before the A.O/TPO. Further, we are into the analysis of segmented accounts of corporate entity as available in public domain. It was on this basis that the TPO set off comparables undertaken by the assessee and was analyzed by the A.O/TPO and was available before the CIT(A). Therefore, there is no possibility of fresh facts being considered by the First Appellate Authority. The ground of appeal is dismissed. Deduction u/s.10A is allowable before giving effect to provisions of Section 70 71 - HELD THAT:- This issue has been decided by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Black and Veatch Consulting Pvt. Ltd [2012 (4) TMI 450 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] held that the deduction u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The Appellant, therefore, prays that on the grounds stated above, the order of the CIT(A)-58, Mumbai may be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer restored. 3. Facts in brief are that the assessee M/s. Uni Design Jewellery Private Limited located at SEEPZ, Mumbai is engaged in the business of manufacturing and exporting of jewellery. The assessee is dominantly into export related manufacturing. The assessee has claimed deduction u/s 10A of the Act. During the year under consideration, the assessee had entered into various international transactions with its Associated Enterprises. uring the course of assessment, AO disallowed ₹ 5,34,000/- on account of loss of foreign exchange currency forward contract entered into by the assessee. AO has treated the same as speculation loss not allowable as deduction from business receipts. 4. By the impugned order, CIT(A) deleted the disallowance. 5. We have considered rival contentions and found that this issue is revolving around loss on foreign exchange forward contacts cancelled during the year, whether it is speculative in nature. Identical issue came up before ITAT in assessee's own case for A.Y. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal, we hold that ₹ 5,75,958/- on account of cancellation of foreign exchange contract in the course of business has to be treated as 'income from business' and consequently, the assessee is entitled to deduction under section 10A of the Act. In this view of the matter, the order of the CIT(A) is set aside and tlie ground raised by the assessee is allowed 6. As the facts and circumstances during the year under consideration are same, respectfully following the decision of the Tribunal in assessee s own case, wherein Tribunal have held that cancellation of foreign exchange contract is a business loss and not a speculation loss, we do not find any infirmity in the order of CIT(A) for allowing assessee s claim of business loss. 7. Ground No. 2 3 are interconnected, wherein Department has raised a legal issue as to whether when TNMM requires only broad comparability and not product identity, CIT(A) was not justified in accepting product dissimilarity claim to reject M/s.Gitanjali Export Corporation Pvt. Ltd., as valid comparability. 8. It was contended by learned AR that this issue has been decided by order o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ground of appeal does not point out to any particular facts, which are not there before the A.O/TPO. Further, we are into the analysis of segmented accounts of corporate entity as available in public domain. It was on this basis that the TPO set off comparables undertaken by the assessee and was analyzed by the A.O/TPO and was available before the CIT(A). Therefore, there is no possibility of fresh facts being considered by the First Appellate Authority. The ground of appeal is dismissed. 15. Ground No.4 taken by the Revenue reads as under:- 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in granting relief to the assessee without appreciating the fact that Assessing Officer, in view of CBDT Circular No. 279/Misc/M-ll6/2011 opined that deduction u/s. 10A would be allowed, after giving effect to provisions of Section 70 71 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 16. We have considered rival contentions and found that issue under consideration revolves around whether deduction u/s.10A is allowable before giving effect to provisions of Section 70 71 of the IT Act. This issue has been decided by the Hon'ble Bombay High ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
