CLASSIC CITI INVESTMENT PVT.LTD,PUNE vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1, PUNE
In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal upheld the Principal CIT's view, stating that foreign exchange loss on loans for capital assets is not deductible as per Supreme Court judgment. The Assessing Officer erred by allowing this deduction without proper inquiry.
What were the facts?
The assessee claimed a deduction for foreign exchange loss on loans taken for capital purposes. The Principal CIT initiated proceedings under Section 263, holding the assessment order to be erroneous and prejudicial to revenue.
What were the issues?
Whether foreign exchange loss on foreign currency loans taken for capital assets is an allowable deduction. Whether the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- CIT v. Woodward Governor India Pvt. Ltd.968 citing312 ITR 254 · 2009 · SC · Read judgment
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH, ‘B’ PUNE
Before: SHRI R.S. SYAL & SHRI S.S.VISWANETHRA RAVI
आदेश / ORDER
PER R.S. SYAL, VP :
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dt. 27-03-2017 passed by the Pr.CIT-1, Pune u/s.263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called ‘the Act’) in relation to the assessment year 2012-13.
It is a recalled matter inasmuch as the earlier ex parte order passed by the Tribunal on 11-09-2020 was subsequently recalled vide its later order dated 10-07-2023 in M.A.No.32/PUN/2023.
Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return declaring certain amount of loss. In the assessment completed u/s.143(3), the income was again determined at a loss but with a different figure. The ld. Pr.CIT, on perusal of records, observed that the assessee had borrowed funds for construction of its hotel building and acquiring other fixed assets. The assessee claimed deduction towards foreign exchange loss amounting to Rs.6,23,43,841/- in the Profit and loss account. Since the amount was borrowed in foreign currency for acquisition of certain capital assets, the ld. Pr.CIT opined that Assessing Officer (AO) wrongly granted deduction in respect of such foreign exchange loss. He, therefore, held the assessment order to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue and directed the AO to examine the eligibility of deduction claim on account of foreign exchange loss of Rs.6.23 crore. Aggrieved thereby, the assessee has come up in appeal before the Tribunal.
Having heard the rival submissions and gone through the relevant material on record, it is seen that the assessee is engaged in the business of running hotels at Pune and Nagpur. Certain amount of loan was taken in foreign currency for capital purposes. Loss on foreign exchange fluctuation in respect of such loan amounting to Rs.6.23 crore was claimed as deduction. The same could not have been allowed as deduction in terms of the judgment of Hon’ble Ltd.(2009) 312 ITR 254 (SC). The AO, without conducting any enquiry on this issue, finalized the assessment u/s.143(3) and eventually allowed the deduction. In view of the fact that such foreign exchange fluctuation loss is not deductible as it pertains to loans taken for capital purposes, the AO by allowing deduction for this sum, passed an erroneous order which was prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. In our considered opinion, no exception can be taken to the view canvassed by the ld. Pr.CIT in this regard.
We, therefore, upold the same.
In the result, the appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 22nd August, 2023.
Sd/- Sd/- (S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI) (R.S.SYAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT पुणे Pune; िदनांक Dated : 22nd August, 2023 सतीश आदेश की �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत/Copy of the Order is forwarded to: अपीलाथ� / The Appellant; 1. ��थ� / The respondent 2. The Pr.CIT concerned 3. 4. DR, ITAT, ‘B’ Bench, Pune गाड� फाईल / Guard file. 5. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ,पुणे / ITAT, Pune
Date 1. Draft dictated on 16-08-2023 Sr.PS 2. Draft placed before author 16-08-2023 Sr.PS 3. Draft proposed & placed before JM the second member 4. Draft discussed/approved by JM Second Member. 5. Approved Draft comes to the Sr.PS Sr.PS/PS 6. Kept for pronouncement on Sr.PS 7. Date of uploading order Sr.PS 8. File sent to the Bench Clerk Sr.PS 9. Date on which file goes to the Head Clerk 10. Date on which file goes to the A.R. 11. Date of dispatch of Order. *
More judgments on Section 263
- Gillette India Limited, Mumbai vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, JaipurITA 1316/JPR/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Neo Structo Construction P. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs The Pr. CIT- 3, AhmedabadITA 1216/AHD/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- Vimal Harilal Baldania, Gandhidham vs The ITO Ward 2, GandhidhamITA 770/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- J.D. Marketing, Kolkata vs ITO, Ward 37(1), KolkataITA 1493/KOL/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- J.D. Marketing, Kolkata vs ITO, Ward 37(1), KolkataITA 1492/KOL/2026[2013-2014]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2013-2014
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S. Rohit Medical Systems vs. Commissioner Of Delhi Goods And Services Tax And Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Manoj Kumar Prop M K Steel Traders vs. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Shivam Kumar vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Rajkalpana Travels PVT. LTD. vs. Commissioner CGST, Delhi North CommissionerateDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Mahaveer Ispat Traders vs. Principal Commissioner Dgst Delhi Department Of Trade And Taxes Gnctd & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026