Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
ITA-233-2022 (O&M)
2024:PHHC:031262-DB Page 1 of 2
105
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
ITA-233-2022 (O&M) Date of Decision: 05.03.2024
Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Chandigarh
. . . . Appellant Vs.
M/s Winsome Textile Industries Ltd., Chandigarh . . . . Respondents **** CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA
HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA **** Present: Mr. Vaibhav Gupta, Advocate for the appellant.
**** SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral)
This is an appeal assailing the order passed by the ITAT dated 27.10.2021 regarding AY 2013-14 of the respondent, whereby the appellate tribunal has treated the amount received on account of exchange gain earned by the respondent as capital gain on the GDR. 2. Learned counsel submits that during the Financial Year 2010-11, the amount raised was not immediately repatriated to India and was invested in Aries Capital Fund Ltd., and subsequently repatriated to India over a period of four years. It is submitted that as the assessee company has gained on account of such money market operations, the said amount received cannot be said to be a capital gain and would be treated as revenue. 3. We have considered the submissions and have carefully gone through the orders passed by the Assessing Officer as well as ITAT. This Court finds that the AO in his order has given a finding that the amount MOHIT GOYAL 2024.03.06 14:10 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh
ITA-233-2022 (O&M)
2024:PHHC:031262-DB Page 2 of 2
which was so-called invested with the Aries Capital Fund Ltd., was subsequently repatriated to India. However, the assessee company gained on account of such money market operations only because of the increasing dollar value i.e. the change in the exchange rate. 4. It is not a case where it can be said that the GDR amount was invested and earnings were received from the investment. In view thereof, the findings arrived at by the AO and the CIT (A) of treating the said exchange gain earned by the assessee as revenue receipt of the assessee has been rightly found to be erroneous by the ITAT, and we do not find any reason to interfere. More so, as the amount received in such a manner has been treated as capital gain by the Supreme Court in the case of Peerless General Finance and Investment Company Ltd. vs. CIT reported in [2019] 416 ITR 1 (SC). Similar view has already been taken and followed by the ITAT. No interference is therefore warranted as no question of law is involved. 5. Appeal stands dismissed accordingly. 6. All pending applications also stand disposed of.
(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA) JUDGE
(SUDEEPTI SHARMA) JUDGE March 05, 2024 Mohit goyal 1. Whether speaking/reasoned?
Yes/No 2. Whether reportable?
Yes/No MOHIT GOYAL 2024.03.06 14:10 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh