9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (7) TMI 1463X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Report? - HELD THAT:- It is not disputed before the revenue that the substantial questions of law which have been suggested by the revenue were considered by this Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Kolkata vs. Price Waterhouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd. 2021 (12) TMI 1400 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] allowing the assessee s claim of foreign exchange fluctuation loss on mark to market basis. Decided against revenue. - THE HON BLE JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM AND THE HON BLE JUSTICE BIVAS PATTANAYAK For the Appellant : Mr. Prithu Dudheria, Adv. For the Respondent : Mr. J. P. Khaitan, Sr. Adv., Mr. Saumya Kejriwal, Adv. ORDER The Court : This appeal filed by the revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l provision of the Act ? We have heard Mr. Prithu Dudheria, learned standing counsel for the appellant/revenue and Mr. J. P. Khaitan, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Saumya Kejriwal, learned Advocate for the respondent/assessee. It is not disputed before the revenue that the substantial questions of law which have been suggested by the revenue were considered by this Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Kolkata vs. Price Waterhouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd. in ITAT/269/2017 dated 17th December, 2021 and the questions were decided against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. The operative portion of the said decision is as follows: The assessee apart from placing materials from the paper book before th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enging the same as contended before the Tribunal. The revenue before us has also placed the instruction issued by CBDT circular no.3 of 2010 dated 23.03.2010 contending that the said instruction was issued post the decision in Woodward Governor India [P] Ltd. Ors. In our considered view, the circular instruction issued by the Board may bind the authority but it would not bind the Court more so when the law has been laid down by the Hon ble Supreme Court as rightly pointed out by the Tribunal the facts are not in dispute and the revenue did not dispute that the loss is arising in respect of forward contract, which have been expired on the last day of the accounting year and it was also not disputed by the revenue that the assessee was foll ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
