THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME T vs. BARCLAYS INVESTMENTS AND LOA

TCA.Nos.152 & 155 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 08.03.2021 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM and THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA Tax Case Appeal Nos.152 & 155 of 2021 and C.M.P.No.2915 of 2021 in TCA.No.155 of 2021 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai. ...Appellant in both cases Vs M/s.Barclays Investments and Loans (India) Ltd., No.144-145, Malavika Centre, Ground Floor, Kodambakkam High Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai - 600 034. ...Respondent in both cases APPEALS under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the common order dated 13.07.2016 made in I.T.A.Nos.2099 and 2100/Mds/2015 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'D' Bench, Chennai for the assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10 respectively. For Appellant: Mrs.R.Hemalatha, SSC For Respondent: Mr.G.Baskar 1/4 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.Nos.152 & 155 of 2021 COMMON JUDGMENT (Delivered by

T.S.SIVAGNANAM

,J ) These appeals, filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, the Act), are directed against the common order dated 13.07.2016 made in I.T.A.Nos.2099 and 2100/Mds/2015 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'D' Bench, Chennai ('the Tribunal' for brevity) for the assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10 respectively. 2. The Revenue in these appeals has raised the following substantial questions of law for consideration: "1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the cae, the Tribunal was right in holding that anticipated loss claimed on account of Equity linked debentures is allowable as a business loss when market to market losses are not ascertained liability which could be set off against taxable income? and 2. Is not the finding of the Tribunal bad especially when market to market loss is a mere provision created in the balance shett and does not constitute an ascertained liability which is 2/4 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.Nos.152 & 155 of 2021 contingent in nature and therefore not an allowable deduction?" 3. We have heard Mrs.R.Hemalatha, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant – Revenue and Mr.G.Baskar, learned counsel for the respondent. 4. The short issue which falls for consideration is whether the assessee has followed the test laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Woodward Governor India (P.) Ltd. [(2009) 179 Taxman 326]. 5. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Chennai [CIT(A)] considered whether the assessee has fulfilled the test prescribed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court for deductibility of market to market losses (MTM) and found that the assessee has fulfilled all the conditions. The correctness of this order was examined by the Tribunal and having been satisfied that the findings rendered by the CIT(A) are correct and that the assessee has fulfilled the test laid down in Woodward Governor India (P.) Ltd., the Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. 3/4 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.Nos.152 & 155 of 2021 T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J AND R.N.MANJULA,J hvk 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that there is no error in the order passed by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the Tax Case Appeals are dismissed and the substantial questions of law are answered against the Revenue. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is also closed. (T.S.S.,J.) (R.N.M.,J.) 08.03.2021 Index: Yes/No Internet:Yes/No hvk To 1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'D' Bench, Chennai. 2. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai. T.C.A.Nos.152 & 155 of 2021 and C.M.P.No.2915 of 2021 4/4 http://www.judis.nic.in