TRIGENT SOFTWARE LTD,BANGALORE vs. ASST CIT 5(3)(2), MUMBAI

Per Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member)

1. On the facts and circumstances of the case the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (A) has erred in confirming the disallowance of the foreign exchange fluctuation loss amounting to Rs.2,38,40,920/- treating the same as speculation loss. The appellant prays that the conclusion reached by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (A) is erroneous and is without considering the correct facts placed on record before him. The appellant prays that the appellant is entitled to claim the deduction of foreign exchange fluctuation loss amounting to Rs.2,38,40,920/-.

2. On the facts and circumstances of the case the Learned Commissioner of income tax (A) has erred in confirming the disallowance of the foreign exchange fluctuation loss amounting to Rs.1,34,26,591/- in the export business as speculation loss. The appellant prays that the appellant is entitled to claim the deduction of foreign exchange fluctuation loss of Rs.1,34,26,591/-. The learned Commissioner of income tax (A) has wrongly concluded that the loss suffered by the appellant is a speculation loss.

3. On the facts and circumstances of the case the learned Commissioner of Income tax (A) has erred in confirming the disallowance of the foreign exchange fluctuation loss amounting to Rs.1,04,14,328/- in the domestic business as speculation loss. The appellant prays that the appellant is entitled to claim the deduction of foreign exchange fluctuation loss of Rs.1,04,14,328/- The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (A) wrongly concluded that the loss suffered by the appellant is a speculation loss.

4. On the facts and circumstances of the case the appellant prays that during the course of appellate proceedings the complete details, information and proof was submitted to the learned Commissioner of income tax (A) in support of the claim of the foreign exchange fluctuation loss suffered by the appellant. The said loss is incurred in respect of executed business transactions and the said loss cannot be treated as speculation loss.

5. On the facts and circumstances of the case the appellant prays that the foreign exchange fluctuation loss be allowed at Rs.2,38,40,920/- while computing the total income.

6. On the facts and circumstances of the case the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (A) has erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs.5,34,198- u/s 14A of Income Tax act,1961. The appellant prays that no disallowance be made u/s.14A and the addition made by the Learned Assessing Officer and confirmed by Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (A) may be deleted.

7. On the facts and circumstances of the case the learned Commissioner of Income tax (A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.5,34,198/- u/s 14A of Income Tax aCt,1961, while computing the book profit u/s 115JB of Income Tax Act,1961. The appellant prays that the addition, confirmed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (A), may be deleted while computing the book profit u/s.115JB of Income Tax act,1961. The assessment for impugned AY was framed by Ld. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax-5(3), Mumbai [AO] u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 20/03/2014.

ITA.No.3762Mum/2016 Trigent Software LImited Assessment Year 2010-11 2.1 Briefly stated, the assessee being resident corporate assessee engaged in software engineering and development has been assessed at Rs.225.6 Lacs under normal provisions as against returned loss of Rs.18.14 Lacs e-filed by the assessee on 08/10/2010. 2.2 During assessment proceedings, it was noted that the assessee claimed certain foreign exchange loss of Rs.238.40 Lacs against outstanding debtors. The said loss comprised-off of Rs.134.26 Lacs on account of export transaction and balance Rs.104.14 Lacs on account of Local business. It was further noted that the same was marked-to-market losses on account of the transaction for export of software as well as in respect of the domestic business with an entity namely Honeywell Technology Solutions Private Ltd. The said loss, in the opinion of Ld. AO was a notional loss and merely a contingent liability which did not crystallized till the date of payment and therefore, was not allowable to the assessee. 2.3 The second addition under dispute is adjustment of Section 14A disallowance while computing Book Profits u/s 115JB. It was noted that the assessee earned exempt dividend income of Rs.25,521/- and made suo-moto disallowance u/s 14A for Rs.5,59,719/- in his computation of income. However, while computing Book Profits u/s 115JB, the said adjustment was restricted to the extent of exempt income i.e. Rs.25,521/-. Resultantly, Ld. AO made further adjustment for the differential amount of Rs.5,34,198/- while computing Book Profits u/s 115JB.