CIT v. D. Chetan & Co.

390 ITR 36High Court2017#4568 most cited

What is CIT v. D. Chetan & Co. authority for?

Losses on foreign exchange forward contracts are not speculative if they are entered into to cover variations in foreign exchange rates impacting import/export business. Such losses are considered business losses and not notional.

26

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. D. Chetan & Co · foreign exchange forward contract · speculative loss · hedging · business loss · import export · mark to market loss · notional loss

Also reported as

243 Taxmann 356

Judgments citing CIT v. D. Chetan & Co.

Adani Enterprises Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Addl.CIT., Range-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Assessing Officer for the assessment year 2010-11 is dismissed

ITA 1840/AHD/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Feb 2019AY 2008-09
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 3

…s. Their lordships conclude that such exchange transactions are hedging transactions instead of being speculative transactions in nature. Next comes hon'ble Bombay high court's decision in CIT v. D. Chetan & Co. [2016] 75 taxmann.com 300/243 Taxman 356/[2017] 390 ITR 36 (Bom.) holding that forward contracts in the nature of hedging transactions in course of normal import export activities to cover up losses on account of foreign exchange valuation difference results in business losses and not speculative one. We find that hon'ble jurisdictional high court's decision in Pankaj Oil Mills v. CIT [1978] 115 ITR 824 (…

DCIT 3(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Mangalore Refinery and Petrochemicals Ltd, Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 7241/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Sept 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Mangalore Refinery & Addl. Cit-3(2), Mumbai Petrochemicals Ltd. 15Th Vs. Floor, Maker Tower, Ewing, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai- 400005. Pan No. Aaacm5132A Respondent Appellant Assessment Year: 2009-10 Dcit-3(2) Room No. Mangalore Refinery & 674, 6Th Floor, Petrochemicals Ltd. 15Th Vs. Aayakarbhavan, M. K. Floor, Maker Tower, Ewing, Road, Mumbai-400020. Cuffe Parade, Mumbai- 400005. Pan No. Aaacm5132A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. J.D.J. Mistri, Senior Advocate & Mr. Madhur Agrawal, Advocate Revenue By : Mr.Samuel Darse, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 12/06/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 07/09/2018

For Appellant: Mr. J.D.J. Mistri, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr.Samuel Darse, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40Section 44B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “L” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2009-10 Mangalore Refinery & Addl. CIT-3(2), Mumbai Petrochemicals Ltd. 15th Vs. Floor, Maker Tower, Ewing, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai- 400005. PAN No. AAACM5132A Respondent Appellant Assessment Year: 2009-10 DCIT-3(2) Room No. Mangalore Refinery & 674, 6th Floor, Petrochemicals Ltd. 15th Vs. AayakarBhavan, M. K. Floor, Maker Tower, Ewing, Road, Mumbai-400020. Cuffe Parade, Mumbai- 400005. PAN No. AAACM5132A Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. J.D.J. Mis…

Magnalore Refinery and Petrochemicals Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 3(2)

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 7133/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Sept 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Mangalore Refinery & Addl. Cit-3(2), Mumbai Petrochemicals Ltd. 15Th Vs. Floor, Maker Tower, Ewing, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai- 400005. Pan No. Aaacm5132A Respondent Appellant Assessment Year: 2009-10 Dcit-3(2) Room No. Mangalore Refinery & 674, 6Th Floor, Petrochemicals Ltd. 15Th Vs. Aayakarbhavan, M. K. Floor, Maker Tower, Ewing, Road, Mumbai-400020. Cuffe Parade, Mumbai- 400005. Pan No. Aaacm5132A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. J.D.J. Mistri, Senior Advocate & Mr. Madhur Agrawal, Advocate Revenue By : Mr.Samuel Darse, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 12/06/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 07/09/2018

For Appellant: Mr. J.D.J. Mistri, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr.Samuel Darse, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40Section 44B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “L” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2009-10 Mangalore Refinery & Addl. CIT-3(2), Mumbai Petrochemicals Ltd. 15th Vs. Floor, Maker Tower, Ewing, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai- 400005. PAN No. AAACM5132A Respondent Appellant Assessment Year: 2009-10 DCIT-3(2) Room No. Mangalore Refinery & 674, 6th Floor, Petrochemicals Ltd. 15th Vs. AayakarBhavan, M. K. Floor, Maker Tower, Ewing, Road, Mumbai-400020. Cuffe Parade, Mumbai- 400005. PAN No. AAACM5132A Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. J.D.J. Mis…

Sterlite Technologies Ltd, Pune vs. CIT Ltu 1, Mumbai

ITA 4020/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 May 2018AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri B.V. Jhaveri-ARFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Swamy (CIT-DR)
Section 115Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 263Section 43Section 43A

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, , , , मुंबई आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण मुंबई “ई ” ” ” ” खंडपीठ खंडपीठ आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण मुंबई मुंबई खंडपीठ खंडपीठ Income-tax Appellate Tribunal “E”Bench Mumbai सव"ी सव"ी सव"ी राजे"" सव"ी राजे"" राजे"", लेखा राजे"" लेखा लेखा सद"य लेखा सद"य सद"य एवं सद"य एवं एवं पवन "सह एवं पवन "सह पवन "सह, "याियक पवन "सह "याियक "याियक सद"य "याियक सद"य सद"य सद"य Before S/Sh. Rajendra,Accountant Member & Pawan Singh, Judicial Member आयकर अपील आयकर अपील संसंसंसं./ITA/4020/Mum/2017, िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2012-13 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Sterlite Technologies Lim…

Virgo Engineers Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 10(3)

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 685/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Apr 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: S/Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Sandeep Gosain (Jm)

Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 14A

…as been offered to tax. Accordingly he submitted that the loss arising on revaluation of outstanding forward contracts should be allowed. The Ld A.R placed reliance on the decision rendered by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. D. Chetan and Co (390 ITR 36) and the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Woodward Governor India P Ltd (312 ITR 254). The ld D.R supported the order passed by Ld CIT(A). 16. We heard the parties on this issue. We notice that the assessee has also revalued the underlying asset, i.e., export receivables and credited the income in the profit and loss acco…

K Girdharilal International Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 5(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose and appeal of Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 3566/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Feb 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Shri K.Shivaram & AdityaFor Respondent: Shri Sambit Mishra (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 253Section 254(1)Section 36(1)(iii)

…of his submission ld. AR of assessee relied upon the Circular No. 3 of 2010 dated 23.03.2010 and the decisions of Tribunal in DCIT Vs Kotak Mahindra investments ltd ITA No. 1502/M/2012, Edelweiss Capitals Ltd ITA No. 5324/M/2007, CIT Vs D. Chetan & Co (2017) 390 ITR 36 (Bom) 7. We have considered the rival contention of the parties and gone through the order of authorities below. We have seen that during the assessment proceeding, the AO treated the Mark to Market los as a notional in nature and accordingly disallowed the claim of assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) on the basis of decision of Tribunal in Edelweiss Capital…