NINESTARS INFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES P LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 4(2), CHENNAI
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the exchange fluctuation loss incurred on the repayment of the loan is a regular revenue loss. The Tribunal followed the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Woodward Governor India (P.) Ltd. and allowed the deduction.
What were the facts?
The assessee gave a loan to its foreign subsidiary in 2013, which was repaid during the assessment year 2015-16. The assessee incurred an exchange fluctuation loss on this repayment. The Assessing Officer disallowed this loss, considering it notional and capital in nature.
What were the issues?
Whether the exchange fluctuation loss on repayment of a foreign currency loan to a subsidiary is a revenue expenditure or a notional/capital loss.
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, ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI
Before: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH & SHRI M. BALAGANESH
आदेश / O R D E R
PER M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
This appeal of the assessee arise out of the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-8, Chennai vide proceedings in dated 28.06.2018 against the order passed by the DCIT, Corporate Circle-4(2), Chennai (AO) u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter ‘the Act’) dated 27.12.2017 for the Assessment Year (A.Y) 2015-16.
(A.Y 2015-16) M/s.Ninestars Information Technologies Pvt. Ltd. :- 2 -: 2. Though the assessee has raised the several grounds of appeal, we find that only effective ground to be decided is as to whether the exchange difference arising on the loan transaction with foreign subsidiary company could be considered as a notional loss in the facts and circumstances of the case.
We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The undisputed facts are that the assessee had given loan to its foreign subsidiary company in the year 2013 and the said loan was received back during the year under consideration.
Pursuing to the same, the assessee incurred foreign exchange fluctuation loss. The assessee in A.Y 2014-15 earned exchange gain in respect of the same transaction and had offered the same to tax.
The Ld. A.O in the scrutiny assessment proceedings completed u/s. 143(3) dated 29.12.2016 had also assessed the said exchange gain as a taxable receipt. During the year under consideration on receipt of the loan from the foreign subsidiary, pursuant to the conversion of the amounts received in foreign currency into Indian currency, the assessee incurred exchange fluctuation loss and claimed the same as a revenue loss u/s.37(1) of the Act in the return of income. This loss was considered to be notional in nature and capital expenditure by the Ld. A.O and accordingly, the same was disallowed in the (A.Y 2015-16) M/s.Ninestars Information Technologies Pvt. Ltd. :- 3 -: assessment. We find that the Ld. CIT(A) had considered this exchange fluctuation loss as "mark to market" loss for treating the same as exchange loss incurred on some forex-derivatives and accordingly by placing reliance on the CBDT Circular Instruction No.3 to 2010 dated 23.03.2010 held that the said exchange fluctuation loss is capital in nature and also contingent expenditure. With this observation, he upheld the action of the Ld. AO. We find that the Revenue had not understood the transaction carried out by the assessee in the instant case. This is a simple case of loan given by the assessee to its foreign subsidiary in the earlier years and at the time of re-statement of the said loans in earlier years at the exchange rate prevailing at the end of the year, it had resulted in exchange gain which has been duly offered to tax by the assessee voluntarily and assessed as such by the Revenue in the scrutiny assessment proceedings completed u/s. 143(3) of the Act. During the year under consideration, when the said loans were received back by the assessee and the assessee had actually incurred exchange loss, the revenue had considered the same as transaction carried out in forex- derivatives and treating the same as "mark to market" loss, which in our considered opinion, is against the facts of the assessee and material available on record. We find that the issue is squarely covered by the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT
(A.Y 2015-16) M/s.Ninestars Information Technologies Pvt. Ltd. :- 4 -: vs. Woodward Governor India (P.) Ltd. reported in [2009] 312 ITR 254(SC) and respectfully following the same, we hold that the exchange fluctuation loss incurred by the assessee during the year under consideration is a regular revenue loss and is squarely allowable as deduction. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced on 28th day of February, 2020 in Chennai.
More judgments on Section 37(1)
- Gillette India Limited, Mumbai vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, JaipurITA 1316/JPR/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Smit Navnitlal Soni, Ahmedabad, Gujarat vs ITO Ward-5(3)(1), Ahmedabad, GujaratITA 1434/AHD/2026[2021-22]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
- Shobha Sudamrao Tagad, Ahmednagar vs ITO WD-1, AhmednagarITA 311/PUN/2026[2023-24]Status: Disposed13 Oct 2026AY 2023-24
- Digjam Limited, Jamnagar vs The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 349/RJT/2025[2021-22]Status: Disposed12 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
- Rajesh Maru, Mhow vs ITO-5(1), IndoreITA 839/IND/2025[2023-2024]Status: Disposed12 Oct 2026AY 2023-2024
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of Hte Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of The Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of The Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Govindjee Dairy Milk Private Limited vs. Central Goods And Services TaxRajasthan · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Asian Aura vs. Government Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026