DCIT v. Intergold (I) Ltd.

124 TTJ 337Income Tax Appellate Tribunal#16647 most cited
5

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2019.

Judgments citing DCIT v. Intergold (I) Ltd.

NAGREEKA EXPORTS LTD,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 6, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in I

ITA 906/KOL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Feb 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.947/Kol/2016 आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.906/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2009-10 )

For Appellant: ShriS.D. Verma, Advocate & Shri Sanjeev Kadel, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

…ions, and not speculative contracts. It was also held that it would be a business loss which can be set off against profit and gains of business.” We also rely on the judgment of the coordinate bench of ITAT Mumbai in the case of DCIT v. Intergold (I) Ltd., (124 TTJ 337), wherein it was held that profits from cancellation of forward exchange contracts are business profits and not speculative profits. Our view is fortified by the judgment of the Hon`ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT v. Soorajmull Nagarmull, (129 ITR 169), wherein it was held that in the normal course of business of import and export of j…

NAGREEKA EXPORTS LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-6, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in I

ITA 947/KOL/2016[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Feb 2019AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.947/Kol/2016 आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.906/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2009-10 )

For Appellant: ShriS.D. Verma, Advocate & Shri Sanjeev Kadel, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

…ions, and not speculative contracts. It was also held that it would be a business loss which can be set off against profit and gains of business.” We also rely on the judgment of the coordinate bench of ITAT Mumbai in the case of DCIT v. Intergold (I) Ltd., (124 TTJ 337), wherein it was held that profits from cancellation of forward exchange contracts are business profits and not speculative profits. Our view is fortified by the judgment of the Hon`ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT v. Soorajmull Nagarmull, (129 ITR 169), wherein it was held that in the normal course of business of import and export of j…

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. EMERALD RESILIENT TYRE MANUFACTURES PVT LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the Revenue appeal is allowed

ITA 371/CHNY/2014[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jun 2017AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri. G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. Supriyo Pal, JCITFor Respondent: Shri. Vikram
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 43(5)

…ons, i.e., a form of derivatives, in which underlying asset was shares, said loss was rightly disallowed by revenue authorities by invoking provisions of section 43(5) - Held, yes Similarly, the Mumbai Bench of ITAT in the case of DCIT V. Intergold (I) Ltd., (124 TTJ 337)(Mum) has held that profits from cancellation of forward exchange contracts are business profits and not speculative profits. The relevant decision is as under: :- 6 -: Section 80HHC of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Deductions - Exporters - Assessment year 1997-98 - Assessee-company was engaged in business of cutting and polishing of diamonds and m…

MAJESTIC EXPORTS,TIRUPPUR vs. ACIT, TIRUPPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 3072/CHNY/2014[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Jul 2015AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri V. Durga Raoआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.1336 & 3072/Mds/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-2010 & 2010-2011)

For Appellant: Shri. T. Banusekar, C.A ""For Respondent: Shri. Krishnamurthy, IRS, CIT
Section 43Section 43(5)Section 73Section 8

…ral part of assessee’s exports profits eligible for deduction u/s.80HHC and Expln.(baa) had no application ‘’. 5.4 The ld. Authorised Representative for assessee relied on the order of the Co-Ordinate Bench, Mumbai in the case of DCIT vs. Intergold (I) Ltd, 124 TTJ 337, wherein it was held that ‘’Profits on cancellation forward exchange contract were assessee’s profits of business, but as such profits were not derived from export activity and were received from banks in India not in convertible foreign exchange in terms of sub- s(2), of s. 80HHC,90 percent of the same has to be reduced from profits of business…

MAJESTIC EXPORTS,TIRUPPUR vs. JCIT, TIRUPPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1336/CHNY/2014[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Jul 2015AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri V. Durga Raoआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.1336 & 3072/Mds/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-2010 & 2010-2011)

For Appellant: Shri. T. Banusekar, C.A ""For Respondent: Shri. Krishnamurthy, IRS, CIT
Section 43Section 43(5)Section 73Section 8

…ral part of assessee’s exports profits eligible for deduction u/s.80HHC and Expln.(baa) had no application ‘’. 5.4 The ld. Authorised Representative for assessee relied on the order of the Co-Ordinate Bench, Mumbai in the case of DCIT vs. Intergold (I) Ltd, 124 TTJ 337, wherein it was held that ‘’Profits on cancellation forward exchange contract were assessee’s profits of business, but as such profits were not derived from export activity and were received from banks in India not in convertible foreign exchange in terms of sub- s(2), of s. 80HHC,90 percent of the same has to be reduced from profits of business…

DCIT v. Intergold (I) Ltd. (124 TTJ 337) — Cited in 5 Judgments | BharatTax