COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI-I vs. AMERIPRISE INDIA PVT.LTD.
What did the High Court hold?
The ITAT correctly held that foreign exchange gain/loss arising from international trading transactions should be considered as operating in nature. The AO was not justified in treating foreign exchange loss as non-operating.
What were the facts?
The Revenue appealed against an ITAT order concerning the assessment year 2009-10. The core issue was whether foreign exchange gain/loss should be treated as operating revenue/cost.
What were the issues?
Whether foreign exchange gain/loss on international transactions is an operating item. Whether the AO was justified in treating foreign exchange loss as non-operating.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
ITA 206/2016 Page 1 of 2
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 17. +
ITA 206/2016
PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI-I .... Appellant Through: Mr P. Roy Chaudhary, Senior Standing Counsel with Ms Lakshmi Gurung, Junior Standing Counsel.
versus
AMERIPRISE INDIA PVT.LTD.
..... Respondent Through: Deepak Chopra and Mr Harpreet Singh Ajmani and Mr Rohan Khare, Advocates.
CORAM: JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU
O R D E R %
23.03.2016 CM No.10985/2016 1. For the reasons stated therein, the delay in re-filing the appeal is condoned. The application is disposed of.
ITA 206/2016 2. This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order dated 14th August, 2015 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in ITA No.2010/Del/2014 for the Assessment Year (‘AY’) 2009-10.
The question sought to be urged by the Revenue is whether the ITAT was correct in directing the foreign exchange gain/loss to be considered as an item of operating revenue/cost?
ITA 206/2016 Page 2 of 2
The ITAT has in the impugned order noted the fact that the foreign exchange gain earned by the Assessee is in relation to the trading items emanating from the international transactions. Since the foreign exchange loss directly resulted from trading items, it could not be considered as a non- operating loss. Further, it is noted by the Dispute Resolution Panel that the service agreement between the Associated Enterprise (AE) and the Assessee stated that for the specified products and services provided by the Assessee, it "shall raise invoices on Ameriprise USA on the basis of a cost plus pricing methodology." The ITAT was therefore right in holding that the AO was not justified in considering the foreign exchange loss as a non-operating cost.
Additionally, it is pointed out by Mr Deepak Chopra, learned counsel for the Assessee, that for the subsequent AYs an Advance Pricing Agreement has been entered into between the Assessee and the Central Board of Direct Taxes under Section 92CC of the Act on 22nd January 2016 whereunder the aforementioned 'cost plus pricing methodology' has been implicitly accepted. Therefore, in the facts of the present case, the Court is of the view that no substantial question of law arises.
The appeal is dismissed.
S.MURALIDHAR, J
VIBHU BAKHRU, J MARCH 23, 2016/MK
More judgments on Section 92CC
- DCIT, Pune vs A.G.S. Customer Services (India) Pvt Ltd…ITA 2041/PUN/2025[2011-12]Status: Disposed25 Sept 2026AY 2011-12
- Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax… vs A.G.S. Customer Services (India) Private…ITA 2040/PUN/2025[2010-11]Status: Disposed25 Sept 2026AY 2010-11
- ACIT Cir-4(3) (1), Mumbai vs M/S. Jefferies India Pvt. Ltd, MumbaiITA 1668/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: Disposed21 Sept 2026AY 2012-13
- Elsevier Limited, United Kingdom vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle…ITITA 1505/DEL/2025[AY 2022-23]Status: Disposed1 Sept 2026
- Akamai Technologies Solutions (India)… vs Asst.C.I.T., BangaloreITA 245/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: Disposed24 Aug 2026AY 2011-12
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Santa Singh vs. SuperintendentUttarakhand · 27 Oct 2026
- Azaad Builders vs. Assistant Commissioner SGSTUttarakhand · 27 Oct 2026
- Shadab Malik vs. State Of U.P. And 2 OthersAllahabad · 26 Oct 2026
- Ganesh Trimbak Saraf And Another vs. The State Of Maharashtra And AnotherBombay · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S. Vajram Infra Material Industries vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026