DCIT v. Mahendra Brothers Exports (P.) Ltd.

GREATSHIP (INDIA) LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 5(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

…g decisions:- 1. CIT vs Badridas Gauridu 261 ITR 256 (Bom) 2. CIT vs D Chetan & Co 390 ITR 56 (Del) 3. CIT vs Celebrity Fashion Ltd 428 ITR 470 (Mad) 4. CIT vs Friends and Friends Shipping Pvt Ltd 35 taxmann.com 553 (Guj) 5. DCIT vs Mahindra Bros Export P Ltd 161 ITD 772 (Mum) 6. Uni Design Jewellery P Ltd vs DCIT ITA 2578/Mum/2018 dt 30-09-2019 19. The learned Departmental Representative strongly relying upon the observations of the assessing officer and learned DRP submitted, the assessee has not brought enough materials on record to establish that the foreign currency forward contracts were in the nature of he…

UNI DESIGN JEWELLERY P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 9, MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA no.2578/Mum./2018 (Assessment Year : 2012–13) UNI Design Jewellery Pvt. Ltd. Plot no.4–5–6, UNI Design SEEPZ, Andheri (East) ……………. Appellant Mumbai 400 056 PAN – AAACU0572G v/s Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax ……………. Respondent Central Circle–9, Mumbai Assessee by : Shri Anuj Kisnadwala Revenue by : Shri Sushil Kumar Poddar Date of Hearing – 10.10.2019 Date of Order – 30.12.2019 O R D E R PER SAKTIJIT DEY, J.M. The captioned appeal has been filed by the assesse…

UNI DESIGN JEWELLERY P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 9, MUMBAI

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumar

…essee’s own case in ITA Nos.8804/Mum/2004 and others , dt.30-10-2009, wherein it has been held that the loss resulting from cancellation of forward contract in foreign exchange was held to be a business loss. iii. DCIT Vs. Mahendra Brothers Exports (P) Ltd., [161 ITD 772/72 taxmann.com 301 (Mumbai-Trib); iv. CIT Vs. D.Chetan and Co., [390 ITR 36] (Bom); : 10 : ITA Nos. 2576 & 2577/Mum/2018 13. Ld.DR on the other hand, relied on the orders of authorities below and submitted that the said loss is a speculative loss as the contract was undertaken without any delivery and therefore rightly treated as speculative lo…

BLUE STAR DIAMONDS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 5(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2010-11 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Gosain

…dging of the expected imports and resulted in avoidable loss if the foreign currency had moved adversely. Nevertheless, the learned representative also referred to the decision of the Tribunal in the case of DCIT vs Mahendra Brothers Exports (P.) Ltd., [2016] 161 ITD 772 as well as in the case of D. Kishorekumar & Co. vs DCIT, [2005] 2 SOT 769 (Mum.) to support assessee’s treatment of such loss as a ‘business loss’ and not as a ‘speculation loss’. 12. On the other hand, the ld. DR reiterated the reasoning taken by the CIT(A) to disallow the loss, which we have already noted in some detail in the earlier paras an…

BLUE STAR DIAMONDS P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 5(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2010-11 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Gosain

…dging of the expected imports and resulted in avoidable loss if the foreign currency had moved adversely. Nevertheless, the learned representative also referred to the decision of the Tribunal in the case of DCIT vs Mahendra Brothers Exports (P.) Ltd., [2016] 161 ITD 772 as well as in the case of D. Kishorekumar & Co. vs DCIT, [2005] 2 SOT 769 (Mum.) to support assessee’s treatment of such loss as a ‘business loss’ and not as a ‘speculation loss’. 12. On the other hand, the ld. DR reiterated the reasoning taken by the CIT(A) to disallow the loss, which we have already noted in some detail in the earlier paras an…

NIRU IMP[EX,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (OSD-I) CEN RG 7, MUMBAI

…on account of deemed export,of Rs.1.52 crores,he referred to page 62 of the paper book. He relied upon the cases of D. Chetan and Co.(75 Taxmann.com),M/s. Sanghavi & Sons(ITA/4484/Mum/2012, AY. 2009-10,dated 31/01/2017), Mahendra Brothers Exports Private Ltd.(161 ITD 772),Foods and Inns Ltd.(71 Taxmann.com.338),London Star Diamond 6255/M/13 M/s. Niru Impex Company (I) Private Ltd.(38 Taxmann. com 338),M/s.Hiraco India Pvt.Ltd. (ITA/ 2300/ Mum/2015,AY.2009-10,dated 20/01/2016) and Jaimin Jewellery Exports Private Ltd.(151 ITD 357).The Departmental Representative(DR) supported the order of the FAA stated that tra…

M.PALLONJI & CO. PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, RG.2(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumar

…the following decisions:– i) Kotak Mahindra Capital v/s DCIT, ITA no.5748/Mum./2012 and ITA no.248/Mum./2013; ii) Vakrangee Ltd. v/s ACIT, ITA no.6908/Mum./2014 iii) Jigar Shah v/s ACIT, ITA no.4366/Mum./2014 iv) DCIT v/s Mahendra Brothers Exports Pvt. Ltd., 161 ITD 772; v) Fiduciary Euromax Global Markets Ltd., ITA no.1349/Mum./ 2012 and ITA no.955/Mum./2014; and vi) Usha Martin Ventures Ltd. v/s DCIT, ITA no.847/Kol./2013. 7. The learned Authorised Representative submitted, amount of ` 10 crore invested in share application money cannot be treated to be in the nature of investment giving rise to exempt income.…