How many judgments cite DCIT v. Bank of Bahrain & Kuwait?

81 judgments on BharatTax cite DCIT v. Bank of Bahrain & Kuwait (41 SOT 290), spanning 2015 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does DCIT v. Bank of Bahrain & Kuwait come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 145(2), Section 37(1).

DCIT v. Bank of Bahrain & Kuwait

41 SOT 290Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2010#1414 most cited

What is DCIT v. Bank of Bahrain & Kuwait authority for?

Mark-to-Market (MTM) losses on forward contracts and forex derivatives are allowable as a revenue deduction under Section 37(1) where a binding obligation is created against the assessee. This is provided the assessee consistently follows the same accounting method for both profits and losses.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,181 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

DCIT v. Bank of Bahrain & Kuwait · Bank of Bahrain & Kuwait 41 SOT 290 · MTM losses allowability · forward contracts loss deduction · forex derivatives section 37(1) · foreign exchange fluctuation · consistent accounting method · ITAT Special Bench Mumbai · Section 145(2)

Also reported as

132 TTJ 505

Sections most often in play

Section 145(2)Section 37(1)

Issues it is cited on

free trade zone stpi unit section 80ia(8)section 28(i)foreign tax credit section 92ca(1)section 10aa computer software section 10a book profits section 30 section 40(a)(i)

Judgments citing DCIT v. Bank of Bahrain & Kuwait

Infosys Ltd., Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee and revenue stands partly allowed as indicated hereinabove

ITA 449/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Nov 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojaria & Smt. Beena Pillai

Section 10ASection 40

…T(TP)A Nos. 449, 509/Bang/2015, 613 & 532/Bang/2016 & ITA Nos. 1530 to 1532, 1557, 1848 & 1849/Bang/2017 6.4 We also draw support from the decision of Hon’ble Mumbai Special Bench decision in case of DCIT vs. M/s. Bank of Bahrain and Kuwait reported in (2010) 41 SOT 290 wherein similar issue was under consideration. The Hon’ble Special Bench observed and held as under: “50. Therefore, this Accounting Standard mandates that in a situation like in the present case, since the transaction is not settled in the same accounting period, the effect of exchange difference has to be recorded on 31st March. Ld CIT D.R. has…

The Deutsche Investments India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 12, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3169/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 92C

…ointed out the manner in which the said provision has been made and how it is allowable deduction for the assessee and also in view of the reliance placed on Special Bench of the Tribunal decision in the case of DCIT vs. Bank of Behrain and Kuwait reported in 41 SOT 290 and also the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Woodward Governor India Pvt. Ltd., reported in 312 ITR 254. The fact is that the reply letter dated 05/03/2015 has been filed before the ld. AO is acknowledged by the ld. AO himself in his assessment order. Further yet another reply was filed by the assessee vide letter dated 24/03/…

M/S Bosch Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Ltu Circle-1, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1629/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2013-14 Bosch Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Hosur Road, Adugodi, Of Income Tax, Ltu, Bangalore – 560 030. Circle 1, Pan: Aaacm 9840P Bangalore. Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Percy Pardiwala, Advocate Respondent By : Shri V S Chakrapani, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 01.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.09.2022 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S.2. This Appeal Is Against The Order Of The Cit(Appeals), Bangalore-9, Bangalore Dated 31.3.2018 For The Assessment Year 2013- 14. 3. The Assessee Raised Grounds Pertaining To The Following Issues:- Deduction U/S. 35(2Ab) Computed On Net Expenditure As Opposed To Gross Expenditure Disallowance Of Provision For Bad & Doubtful Debts I) Disallowance Of Provision For Long Term Service Award Disallowance Of Expenditure U/S. 14A Of The Act Ii) Page 2 Of 67

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V S Chakrapani, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 14ASection 35Section 37Section 43BSection 80J

…only to future sales transactions without certainty of valuation of the same. The two situations are distinguishable. (iv) Regarding the reliance placed on AS-11 and the decision in the case of Dy. CIT (International Taxation) v. Bank of Bahrain Kuwait [2010] 41 SOT 290 (Mum.) (SB), in that case it was held that if the quantification of the liability can be determined with reasonable accuracy, the same could be adopted. However, in the case on hand, the sale itself has not taken place and the question of any existing liability is itself uncertain. (v) The law is reasonable in allowing the benefit of losses on act…

M/S. Course5 Intelligence Private Limited (Formerly Cross Tab Marketing Services Private Limited), Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 2(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 15/BANG/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Course5 Intelligence Pvt. Ltd., (Formerly Cross Tab Marketing Services The Deputy Pvt. Ltd.) Commissioner Of No. 422, 80 Feet Income Tax, Road, Circle – 2(1)(1), 6Th Block, Vs. Bangalore. Koramangala, Bangalore – 560 095. Pan: Aabcc6525A Appellant Respondent : Shri Padam Chand Khincha, Assessee By Ca : Shri Srinivas Rao Bandaru, Revenue By Jcit Dr Date Of Hearing : 14-07-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 18-08-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 14/10/2019 Passed By Ld.Cit(A)-2, Bangalore For A.Y. 2013-14 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Learned Assessing Officer Had Erred In Passing The Order In The Manner Passed By Him & The Learned Cit (A) Has Erred In Partially Confirming The Same. The Orders Passed Being Bad In Law & Liable To Be Quashed.

For Respondent: Shri Padam Chand Khincha

Section 10ASection 143(2)Section 234B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/s. Course5 Intelligence Pvt. Ltd., (Formerly Cross Tab Marketing Services The Deputy Pvt. Ltd.) Commissioner of No. 422, 80 Feet Income Tax, Road, Circle – 2(1)(1), 6th Block, Vs. Bangalore. Koramangala, Bangalore – 560 095. PAN: AABCC6525A APPELLANT RESPONDENT : Shri Padam Chand Khincha, Assessee by CA : Shri Srinivas Rao Bandaru, Revenue by JCIT DR Date of Hearing : 14-07-2022 Date of Pronouncement : 18-08-2022 ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICI…

The Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. M/S. Ing Vysya Bank Ltd

In the result, these appeals fail and are

ITA/312/2015HC Karnataka27 Jun 2022

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,C.M. POONACHA

Section 260

…as claimed a sum of Rs.2,39,38,811/- as insurance premium paid on Housing Loan Policies. The Assessing Officer held that the amount has to be spread over for a period of 17 22 312 ITR 254(SC) 23 41 SOT 290 SC) 21 years and disallowed the expenses. The CIT (Appeals) reversed the said finding. The ITAT affirming the order passed by the CIT (Appeals), has held that the premium on Housing Loans is a revenue expenditure and deduction is allowable. It is not the case of the assessing officer that the expenses are not for the purpose of ass…

The Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. M/S. Ing Vysya Bank Ltd

In the result, these appeals fail and are

ITA/309/2015HC Karnataka27 Jun 2022

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,C.M. POONACHA

Section 260

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Ing Vysya Bank Ltd

In the result, these appeals fail and are

ITA/350/2015HC Karnataka27 Jun 2022

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,C.M. POONACHA

Section 260

M/S. Model Infra Corporation Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 11/BANG/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Jun 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Model Infra Corporation Pvt. Ltd., The Assistant No. 6, Second Floor, Smk Commissioner Of Chambers, Income Tax, First A Main Road, Circle – 1(1), Yelahanka New Town, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 064. Pan: Aadcm7125J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Nitish Ranjan, Ca : Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Revenue By Addl. Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 29-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 01-06-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Arises Out Of Order Dated 25.10.2019 Passed By Ld.Cit(A)-4, Bangalore For A.Y. 2009-10 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: Tax Effect Relating Grounds Of Appeal To Each Ground Of Appeal The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income- 1. Tax (Appeals) Is Opposed To Law, Facts & Na - Circumstances Of The Case.

For Appellant: Shri Nitish Ranjan, CA

Section 36Section 36(2)

…s is termed as per the principles of accounting which require the current assets to be marked to the market rate. We draw support from the decision of Hon’ble Mumbai Special Bench decision in case of DCIT vs. M/s. Bank of Bahrain and Kuwait reported in (2010) 41 SOT 290 wherein similar issue was under consideration. Page 10 of 16 The Hon’ble Special Bench observed and held as under: “50. Therefore, this Accounting Standard mandates that in a situation like in the present case, since the transaction is not settled in the same accounting period, the effect of exchange difference has to be recorded on 31st March. L…

Jt.CIT.(OSD), Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Axis Bank Limited, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 956/AHD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Mar 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 852/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2015-2016 Axis Bank Limited, J.C.I.T., “Trishul”, 3Rd Floor, Vs. Circle-1(1)(1), Opp. Samtheshwar Mahadev, Ahmedabad. Near Law Garden, Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad-380006. Pan: Aaacu2414K

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar Sr. Advocate with Shri Parin Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Vijaykumar Jaiswal, CIT.D.R

Section 133Section 14ASection 43D

…clause of commission received on issuance of bank guarantee , the income of commission gets accrued in the year in which the guarantee is issued. 7.3.9 it is pertinent to state that the Special Bench of ITA.T in the case of Dy.CITvs Bank of BaharainS, Kuwait 132 TTJ 505 (Mum) (SB) has considered the identical issue and also judgment in the case of Bank of Tokyo and Madras industrial Investment Corporation Ltd relied upon by the appellant and held that if the guarantee commission was refundable then it cannot be said that absolute right to the commission had accrued in favour of She assesses at the time of execut…

Axis Bank Limited, Ahmedabad vs. Jt.CIT., Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 852/AHD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Mar 2022AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar Sr. Advocate with Shri Parin Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Vijaykumar Jaiswal, CIT.D.R

Section 133Section 14ASection 43D

JCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Biocon Ltd., Bangalore

In the result appeal filed by assessee for assessment year

ITA 558/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Nov 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Smt Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCHES “B” BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Appeal No. Appellant Respondent Year M/s. Biocon The Deputy Ltd., Commissioner IT(TP)A No. of Income Tax, 2009-10 20th KM, Hosur 230/Bang/2014 Road, LTU, Electronic City, Bangalore. Bangalore – The Joint IT(TP)A No. 560100. Commissioner 2011-12 557/Bang/2016 PAN: of Income Tax, AAACB7461R LTU, Bangalore. M/s. Biocon Ltd., 20th KM, Hosur The Joint Road, IT(TP)A No. Commissioner Electronic City, 2011-12 558/Bang/2016 of Income Tax, Bangalore – LT…

Biocon Limited, Bangalore vs. JCIT, Bangalore

In the result appeal filed by assessee for assessment year

ITA 557/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Nov 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Smt Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 92C

Andritz Hydro P Ltd, Bhopal vs. Pr CIT-1, Bhopal

ITA 199/IND/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore29 Oct 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Madhumita Royvirtual Hearing

Section 115JSection 253Section 263

…s outstanding at the year end. The Ld Counsel for the assessee submitted that the issue raised in the appeal is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by various judgments including the Special Bench decision in the case of DCIT V Bank of Bahrain & Kuwait 132 TTJ 505 (Mum) (SB). He also submitted that the actual loss incurred in the forward market contracts for foreign exchange for the transactions squared up during the year have already been allowed by the revenue Andritz Hydro Private Ltd. ITANo.198 & 199/Ind/2020 authorities but both the lower authorities has denied the claim of loss with regard to pendi…

Axis Bank Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-1 Now Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 311/AHD/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Oct 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedsl. Ita No(S) Asset. Appeal(S) By No(S) Year(S) Appellant Vs. Respondent Appellant Respondent 1. 311/Ahd/2016 2010-11 Axis Bank Limited, D.C.I.T., “Trishul”, 3Rd Floor, Circle-1(1)(1) Opp. Samtheshwar Ahmedabad. Mahadev Near Law Garden, Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad-380006. Pan: Aaacu2414K 2. 2176/Ahd/2016 2011-12 Axis Bank Limited, D.C.I.T., “Trishul”, 3Rd Floor, Circle-1(1)(1) Opp. Samtheshwar Ahmedabad. Mahadev Near Law Garden, Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad-380006. Pan: Aaacu2414K 3. 2173/Ahd/2016 2011-12 D.C.I.T., Axis Bank Limited, Circle-1(1)(1) Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad. Pan: Aaacu2414K 4. 165/Ahd/2017 2012-13 Axis Bank Limited, D.C.I.T., Ahmedabad. Circle-1(1)(1) Ahmedabad. Pan: Aaacu2414K 5. 287/Ahd/2017 2012-13 D.C.I.T., Axis Bank Limited, Circle-1(1)(1) Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad. Pan: Aaacu2414K 6-7 520 & 2013-14 Axis Bank Limited, D.C.I.T., 521/Ahd/2018 & Ahmedabad. Circle-1(1)(1) 2014-15 Ahmedabad. Pan: Aaacu2414K 8-9 604 & 605/ 2013-14 D.C.I.T., Axis Bank Limited, Ahd/2018 & Circle-1(1)(1) Ahmedabad. 2014-15 Ahmedabad. Pan: Aaacu2414K

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate with Smt. Urvashi Shodhan, and Shri Parin Shah,For Respondent: Shri Anshu Prakash, CIT.DR

Section 14A

…d clause of commission received on issuance of Pank guarantee . the income of commission gets accrued in the year in which the guarantee is issued 7.3.9 It is pertinent to state thai the Special Bench of ITAT in the case of Dy.CIT vs Bank of Baharain & Kuwait 132 TTJ 505 (Mum) (SB) has considered ihe identical issue and also judgment in Ihe case of Bank of Tokyo and Madras Industrial Investment Corporation ltd relied upon tay ihe appellant and held that if the guarantee commission was refundable then it cannol be said that absolute right to the commission had accrued in favour of the assessee at the time of execu…

Vvf (India) Ltd., Mumbai vs. Ass CIT Circle- 8 (3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal is allowed

ITA 7834/MUM/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2016-17 Vvf (India) Ltd., Acit- Circle (3)(2), Plot 109, Sion Fort Garden, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Sion (East), Churchgate, Mumbai - 400022 Vs. Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aadcv4970G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Madhur Aggarwal (Ar) Revenue By : Usha Gaikwad (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 20/05/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 26/07/2021

For Appellant: Madhur Aggarwal (AR)For Respondent: Usha Gaikwad (DR)

…C 7. Essel Propack Ltd. Vs. DCIT (ITA No. 5312/Mum/2015)-Mumbai ITAT 8. ACIT Vs. Shree Balkrishna Exports (ITA No. 4185/Mum/2014)- Mumbai ITAT 9. S. Vinodkumar Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT (ITA No. 79/Mum/2015)-Mumbai ITAT 10 DCIT Vs. Bank of Bahrain & Kuwait (41 SOT 290) (SB)-Mumbai ITAT 11 Everest Industries Ltd. Vs. JCIT (90 taxmann.com 330)-Mumbai” 5. He submitted, learned Commissioner (Appeals) has wrongly relied upon the decision in case of Bechtal India (P) Ltd as it is factually distinguishable. Further, he submitted, in case of Bechtal India (P) Ltd., the decisions of Hon’ble Bombay High Court have not be…

Asst CIT 19(1), Mumbai vs. Dilipkkumar V. Lakhi, Mumbai

In the result, Revenue's appeal for assessment year 2009-10 is dismissed

ITA 4825/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year: 2009-10 Acit 19(1), Shri Dilip Kumar V 2Nd Floor, Lakhi, Matru Mandi, 102, 115, 116, Prasad Vs. Tardeo Rd., Chambers, Mumbai - 400007 Opera House, Mumbai – 400 004 Pan: Aagfd 1262M (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Subhash Shetty, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Sunil Deshpande, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 10.12.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.01.2020 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Subhash Shetty, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Deshpande, D.R

Section 143(1)Section 92C

…. 43 -42) as on 31st March, 1998 should be taken as loss and allowed deduction accordingly. The Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Dv. CIT (International ITA No. 7330/MUM/2013 (Assessment Year : 2009-10) Taxation) v. Bank of Bah rain & Kuwait [2010] 41 SOT 290 (Mum.) has held that the loss incurred by the assessee on account of evaluation of the contract on the last day of the accounting year i.e. before the date of maturity of the forward contract, is allowable as deduction. In that view of the matter this loss of Rs. 7.14 crore representing difference of Re. 1 (Rs. 43 - 42) is liable to be allowed as…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Bangalore vs. M/S. Abb Global Industries and Services Pvt Ltd, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed, while the appeal by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1660/BANG/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Dec 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N V Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gopalan Guruswamy, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

…the assessee before the Tribunal. 6. We have heard the submissions of the ld. counsel for the assessee and the ld. DR. The ld. counsel for the assessee brought to our notice the decision of the Special Bench ITAT in the case of ACIT v. Bank of Bahrain [2010] 41 SOT 290 (Mum)(SB) wherein the SB took the view that forward contract entered into by the assessee to sell foreign currency at an agreed price on a future date falling beyond last date of account period, i.e., before the date of maturity of forward contract, such loss has to be allowed as a deduction. 7. Our attention was also drawn to a decision of the B…

Abb Global Industries and Services Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-11(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed, while the appeal by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1488/BANG/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Dec 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N V Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gopalan Guruswamy, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Deutsche Investments India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT 6, Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 3665/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Nov 2020AY 2008-09

Section 143(3)Section 263

…re in the nature of bonds and hence the CBDT instruction relating to the derivatives is not applicable in the instant case. f) Further reliance is placed On the decision of Special Bench of Mumbai ITAT in the case DCIT v. Bank of Bahrain and Kuwait, ((2010) (41 SOT 290) (copy enclosed at pages 185 to 204 of the paper book) wherein it has been held that Mark to Market losses in respect of forward foreign exchange contracts debited to profit and loss account is allowable as deduction. This view has also been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Woodward Governor India (I) P. Ltd, (2009) 312 ITR 254 (…

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 10, Pune vs. Thermax Limited, Pune

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1660/PUN/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Oct 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No. 1660/Pun/2017 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri H.P MahajaniFor Respondent: Shri Subhakanta Sahu

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)

…re 6 A.Y.2009-10 is on account of a transactions otherwise of revenue nature and this transaction resulted due to marking the liability to market rate as at the end of the year. The Special Bench of the Tribunal in DCIT Vs. Bank of Bahrain and Kuwait (2010) 132 TTJ 505 (SB)(MUM) has held that such loss or profit is of revenue character. After considering the adverse Instruction No.03/2010, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Munjal Showa Vs. DCIT (2016) 67 taxmann.com 359 (Delhi) has held that such loss/profit to be of revenue character. It further held that the CBDT Instruction cannot override the judicially settl…