9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 1909X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] we find that there was no submission recorded on behalf of the Revenue that the Respondent assessee should be called upon to explain the nature of its transactions. Thus, the submission now being made is without any foundation as the stand of the assessee on facts was never disputed - On present facts, it was never the Revenue's contention that the transaction was specula ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al was justified in allowing 'Mark to Market' loss of ₹ 1,54,83,835/- arising on valuation of forward exchange contracts on the closing date of accounting year? 2. Learned counsel for the Revenue pointed out that the issue is squarely covered against the department by virtue of the judgment of this Court in the case of CIT Vs. M/s. D. Chetan Co. dated 1.10.2016 in Income Tax Ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Respondent assessee that the activity of entering into forward contract was in the regular course of its business only to safeguard against the loss on account of foreign exchange variation. Even before the Tribunal, we find that there was no submission recorded on behalf of the Revenue that the Respondent assessee should be called upon to explain the nature of its transactions. Thus, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in another case by itself would not entitle a party to have an identical relief in this case. In fact, if the Revenue was of the view that the facts in S. Vinodkumar (supra) are identical / similar to the present facts, then reliance would have been placed by the Revenue upon it at the hearing before the Tribunal. The impugned order does not indicate any such reliance. It appears that in S. Vinodk ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
