Kishorekumar & Co. v. DCIT

2 SOT 769Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2005#5701 most cited

What is Kishorekumar & Co. v. DCIT authority for?

Losses arising from forward contracts, when used to hedge underlying business liabilities or risks, are treated as business losses and not speculative losses. This applies even if the transaction settles without actual delivery.

20

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2020.

Also referred to as

Kishorekumar & Co. v. DCIT · 2 SOT 769 · forward contracts · business loss · speculative loss · hedging · underlying liability · derivative contract · actual delivery · section 43(5)

Judgments citing Kishorekumar & Co. v. DCIT

Stenly Securities Ltd, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir.-5, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 2301/KOL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Mar 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm] Assessment Year: 2009-10

…ivery within the meaning of sub-section 5 of Section 43 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Ld. DR also relied on the following judgments. 1). ACIT-vs- K. Mohan & Company Private Ltd., Bangalore ITAT 126 ITD 59 2) D. Kishore Commercial & Company, Mumbai ITAT, 2 SOT 769 3) S. Vinod Kumar –vs- ACIT, Mumbai ITAT in ITA No.506/Mum/13 All the Judgments cited above speak about the speculative transactions which do not have any underlying assets and liabilities to hedge and these transactions settle in future without actual delivery of goods. 7. Having heard the rival submissions, we are of the view that there is m…

Gold Star Diamond P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 5(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4212/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumard C I T - 5(1) M/S. Gold Star Diamond P. Ltd. Room No. 568, 5Th Floor 7/714, Prasad Chambers Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Opera House, Mumbai 400004 Mumbai 400020 Pan – Aaacr4157Q Appellant Respondent M/S. Gold Star Diamond P. Ltd. D C I T - 5(1) 7/714, Prasad Chambers Room No. 568, 5Th Floor Vs. Opera House, Mumbai 400004 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai 400020 Pan – Aaacr4157Q Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri M. SubramanianFor Respondent: Shri Akhilendra Yadav
Section 143(3)Section 234A

…rs has been upheld by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court by dismissing ITA No. 777 of 2010 filed by the Revenue vide order dated 17th January, 2011. The assessee also relied on a series of decisions, which are as follows: - i) D. Kishorekumar & Co. vs. DCIT (2005) 2 SOT 769(Mum) 6 M/s. Gold Star Diamond P. Ltd. ii) CIT vs. Friends and Friends Shipping (p.) Ltd. (2013) 35 taxmann.com 553 (Guj) iii) CIT vs. Soorajmuli Nagarmuli (1981) 5 Taxman 289 (Cal) iv) London Star Diamond Company (I) P. Ltd. vs. DCIT (2013) 38 taxmann.com 338 (Mum-Trib.) v) Jaimin Jewellery Exports (P.) Ltd. vs. ACIT (2014) 43 taxmann.com 380 (Mum…

DCIT 5(1), Mumbai vs. Gold Star Diamond P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3901/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumard C I T - 5(1) M/S. Gold Star Diamond P. Ltd. Room No. 568, 5Th Floor 7/714, Prasad Chambers Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Opera House, Mumbai 400004 Mumbai 400020 Pan – Aaacr4157Q Appellant Respondent M/S. Gold Star Diamond P. Ltd. D C I T - 5(1) 7/714, Prasad Chambers Room No. 568, 5Th Floor Vs. Opera House, Mumbai 400004 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai 400020 Pan – Aaacr4157Q Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri M. SubramanianFor Respondent: Shri Akhilendra Yadav
Section 143(3)Section 234A

…rs has been upheld by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court by dismissing ITA No. 777 of 2010 filed by the Revenue vide order dated 17th January, 2011. The assessee also relied on a series of decisions, which are as follows: - i) D. Kishorekumar & Co. vs. DCIT (2005) 2 SOT 769(Mum) 6 M/s. Gold Star Diamond P. Ltd. ii) CIT vs. Friends and Friends Shipping (p.) Ltd. (2013) 35 taxmann.com 553 (Guj) iii) CIT vs. Soorajmuli Nagarmuli (1981) 5 Taxman 289 (Cal) iv) London Star Diamond Company (I) P. Ltd. vs. DCIT (2013) 38 taxmann.com 338 (Mum-Trib.) v) Jaimin Jewellery Exports (P.) Ltd. vs. ACIT (2014) 43 taxmann.com 380 (Mum…

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

ITA 88/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jun 2018AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri Anuj KisnadwalaFor Respondent: Shri T.A. Khan
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…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 and is not being repeated for the sake of brevity. 13. We have carefully cons…

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

ITA 3766/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Shri Anuj KisnadwalaFor Respondent: Shri T.A. Khan
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…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 and is not being repeated for the sake of brevity. 13. We have carefully cons…

Arjav Diamonds (India) P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 5(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

ITA 7467/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Arjav Diamonds (India) Pvt. Vs. Acit – 5(1), Mumbai Ltd., 314, Prasad Chambers, Opera House, Mumbai – 400 004 Pan/Gir No. Aagca2472D Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 43Section 43(5)

…eed to import some conclusions of the said decisions. Relevant judgmental laws – Conclusions & Held portions 23. Relevant extracts from the cited judgments are inserted in the succeeding paragraphs here as under: A. Held portion in the case of D. Kishorekumar 2 SOT 769 (Mum) 15 Arjav Diamonds (India) Pvt. Ltd., ―The details of forward exchange contract clearly show that all the forward exchange contracts were in respect of each specific import order placed by the assessee. The purpose of these transactions was clearly to minimise assessee‘s risk on account of fall in value of rupee, but the quantum of foreign ex…

Visteon Automotive Systems India Private Limited, Chengalput vs. Addl CIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for

ITA 1395/CHNY/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Mar 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1551 & 1552/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2005-06 & 2008-09 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1394 & 1395/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2006-07 & 2007-08

Section 43(5)

…2 of the financial statements represents loss of the aforesaid nature. 3.0 The assessee explained before the AO that any loss or gain arising from such transaction is a business loss or gain and relied on the decision of D Kishorekumar & Co. v. DCIT (2005) 2 SOT 769, CIT v. Badridas Gauridu Private Limited (2003) 261 ITR 268 (Bombay HC) and CIT vs. Soorajmull Nagamull (1981) 129 ITR 169 (HC) (Calcutta). The AO noticed that the assessee’s main activities were manufacturing of control systems, plastic components, etc., for automobiles. The AO further observed that the assessee has not entered into such forwa…

Visteon Automotive Systems India Private Limited, Chengalput vs. Addl CIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for

ITA 1394/CHNY/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Mar 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1551 & 1552/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2005-06 & 2008-09 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1394 & 1395/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2006-07 & 2007-08

Section 43(5)

…2 of the financial statements represents loss of the aforesaid nature. 3.0 The assessee explained before the AO that any loss or gain arising from such transaction is a business loss or gain and relied on the decision of D Kishorekumar & Co. v. DCIT (2005) 2 SOT 769, CIT v. Badridas Gauridu Private Limited (2003) 261 ITR 268 (Bombay HC) and CIT vs. Soorajmull Nagamull (1981) 129 ITR 169 (HC) (Calcutta). The AO noticed that the assessee’s main activities were manufacturing of control systems, plastic components, etc., for automobiles. The AO further observed that the assessee has not entered into such forwa…

Visteon Automotive Systems India Private Limited, Chengalput vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for

ITA 1552/CHNY/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Mar 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1551 & 1552/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2005-06 & 2008-09 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1394 & 1395/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2006-07 & 2007-08

Section 43(5)

…2 of the financial statements represents loss of the aforesaid nature. 3.0 The assessee explained before the AO that any loss or gain arising from such transaction is a business loss or gain and relied on the decision of D Kishorekumar & Co. v. DCIT (2005) 2 SOT 769, CIT v. Badridas Gauridu Private Limited (2003) 261 ITR 268 (Bombay HC) and CIT vs. Soorajmull Nagamull (1981) 129 ITR 169 (HC) (Calcutta). The AO noticed that the assessee’s main activities were manufacturing of control systems, plastic components, etc., for automobiles. The AO further observed that the assessee has not entered into such forwa…

Visteon Automotive Systems India Private Limited, Chengalput vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for

ITA 1551/CHNY/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Mar 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1551 & 1552/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2005-06 & 2008-09 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1394 & 1395/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2006-07 & 2007-08

Section 43(5)

…2 of the financial statements represents loss of the aforesaid nature. 3.0 The assessee explained before the AO that any loss or gain arising from such transaction is a business loss or gain and relied on the decision of D Kishorekumar & Co. v. DCIT (2005) 2 SOT 769, CIT v. Badridas Gauridu Private Limited (2003) 261 ITR 268 (Bombay HC) and CIT vs. Soorajmull Nagamull (1981) 129 ITR 169 (HC) (Calcutta). The AO noticed that the assessee’s main activities were manufacturing of control systems, plastic components, etc., for automobiles. The AO further observed that the assessee has not entered into such forwa…

DCIT 5(2), Mumbai vs. London Star Diamond Co. India P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1359/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Nov 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1359/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11) The Deputy Commissioner Of London Star Diamond बनाम/ Income Tax 5(2) Company (India) Private V. Room No. 571, Aayakar Limited Bhawan, M K Road, Mumbai- 1610/1611 , 400 020 Prasad Chambers, Opera House, Mumbai-400 004 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaacl0576B .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Harsh Kothari
Section 143(3)Section 43(5)

…nge contracts is not required and broad matching should be sufficient. 8. Loss on cancellation of the FCs constitutes Business loss: Ld Counsel explained the facts of the binding coordinate bench decision in the case of D Kishore Kumar & Co. v. Dy. CIT [2005] 2 SOT 769 (mum) and the judgments in the case of Badridas Gauridu (P.) Ltd. (supra) and mentioned that the FCs entered into with the Banks to hedge the foreign exchange loss if any in respect of the core business transactions constitutes its integral part and loss or gains is allowable as business loss or gains as the case may be. Referring to the said decis…

DCIT 8(2), Mumbai vs. Hexaware Technologies Ltd, Navi Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by revenue is dismissed whereas Cross objection filed by assessee is allowed in part for statistical purposes

ITA 4688/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2016AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Rahul Raman

…in business activity of the appellant and not in the nature of business for which he relied on the following case laws: "CIT vs Badridas Gauridu (P) Ltd (2611TR 256) (Bombay HC) CIT vs Soorajmull Nagarmull (129lTR 169) (Kolkata HC) D Kishore kumar Co vs DClT (2 SOT 769) (Mumbai ITAT) DClT vs Beautiful Diamonds Ltd (57ITATlNDIA 1024) (Mum ITAT) 5.18 Therefore, the appellants argument is that the loss arising on account of abuse of fiduciary powers by an employee are allowable as business loss u/s. 28(1) and the loss arisen out of cancellation of foreign exchange transactions does not partake the character of specu…

M/S Nagreeka Exports Limited, Kolkata vs. A.D.I.T RG - 6, Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee and revenue on this issue are dismissed

ITA 455/KOL/2013[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Aug 2016AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, J.M. &Dr.A.L.Saini, A.M.)

For Appellant: Shri S.D. Verma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Mallikarjuna, CIT,DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 37(1)

…delivery within the meaning of sub-section 5 of Section 43 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Ld. DR also relied on the following judgments. 1). ACIT-vs- K. Mohan & Company Private Ltd., Bangalore ITAT 126 ITD 59 2) D. Kishore Commercial & Company, Mumbai ITAT, 2 SOT 769 3) S. Vinod Kumar –vs- ACIT, Mumbai ITAT in ITA No.506/Mum/13 All the Judgments cited above speak about the speculative transactions which do not have any underlying assets and liabilities to hedge and these transactions settle in future without actual delivery of goods. 7. Having heard the rival submissions, we are of the view that there is meri…

Hiraco India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 5(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2300/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jan 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am & Amarjit Singh, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. N.2300/Mum/2015 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year:2009-10) बनाम/ M/S Hiraco India Pvt.Ltd, Dy.Commissioner Of Income Gw 2050, Tax-5(1), Vs. Bharat Diamond Bourse, Aayakar Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, M K Road, Babdra (E), Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400051 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

…to import some conclusions of the said decisions. 9 Relevant judgmental laws – Conclusions & Held portions 23. Relevant extracts from the cited judgments are inserted in the succeeding paragraphs here as under: A. Held portion in the case of D. Kishorekumar 2 SOT 769 (Mum) ―The details of forward exchange contract clearly show that all the forward exchange contracts were in respect of each specific import order placed by the assessee. The purpose of these transactions was clearly to minimise assessee‘s risk on account of fall in value of rupee, but the quantum of foreign exchange covered by these forward contra…

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

…he Calcutta High Court, with which we agree, in the case of CIT v. Soorajmull Nagarmull [1981] 129 ITR 169. 5.3 The ld. Authorised Representative for assessee relied on the order of the Co-Ordinate Bench, Mumbai in the case of D. Kishore Kumar & Co vs. DCIT, 2 SOT 769 wherein it was held that ‘’ assessee engaged in importing rough diamonds and exporting cut and polished ones, profits from cancellation of forward contracts in foreign exchange entered into with a view to minimize risk were integral part of assessee’s exports profits eligible for deduction u/s.80HHC and Expln.(baa) had no application ‘’. 5.4 The l…

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

…he Calcutta High Court, with which we agree, in the case of CIT v. Soorajmull Nagarmull [1981] 129 ITR 169. 5.3 The ld. Authorised Representative for assessee relied on the order of the Co-Ordinate Bench, Mumbai in the case of D. Kishore Kumar & Co vs. DCIT, 2 SOT 769 wherein it was held that ‘’ assessee engaged in importing rough diamonds and exporting cut and polished ones, profits from cancellation of forward contracts in foreign exchange entered into with a view to minimize risk were integral part of assessee’s exports profits eligible for deduction u/s.80HHC and Expln.(baa) had no application ‘’. 5.4 The l…

ACIT, Bangalore vs. M/S K. Mohan & Company (Exports) Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, ITA 1057/B/12 is partly allowed and ITA 1103/B/12 is dismissed

ITA 1103/BANG/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Apr 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, C.AFor Respondent: Shri P. Dhivahar, Jt. CIT(DR)
Section 10BSection 10B(3)

…or the assessment year 2005-06, the Tribunal in the Appellant’s own case had not at all distinguished the order of the Mumbai Bench in the case of D.KishoreKumar & Co vs. ITA Nos. 1093/B0/09, 1266/B/10 & 1057 & 1103/B/12 Page 3 of 50 DCIT reported in (2005) 2 SOT 769 and therefore the CIT(Appeals) ought to have followed the said order of the Mumbai Bench.” 4. The issue that arises for consideration is as to whether receipts from forward contracts can be considered as profits derived from the business for the purpose of computing deduction u/s. 10B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act)? The material facts that are…

M/S K. Mohan & Company (Exports) Private Limited, Bangalore vs. ACIT, Bangalore

In the result, ITA 1057/B/12 is partly allowed and ITA 1103/B/12 is dismissed

ITA 1057/BANG/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Apr 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, C.AFor Respondent: Shri P. Dhivahar, Jt. CIT(DR)
Section 10BSection 10B(3)

…or the assessment year 2005-06, the Tribunal in the Appellant’s own case had not at all distinguished the order of the Mumbai Bench in the case of D.KishoreKumar & Co vs. ITA Nos. 1093/B0/09, 1266/B/10 & 1057 & 1103/B/12 Page 3 of 50 DCIT reported in (2005) 2 SOT 769 and therefore the CIT(Appeals) ought to have followed the said order of the Mumbai Bench.” 4. The issue that arises for consideration is as to whether receipts from forward contracts can be considered as profits derived from the business for the purpose of computing deduction u/s. 10B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act)? The material facts that are…

M/S. K. Mohan & Company (Exports) Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. ACIT, Bangalore

In the result, ITA 1057/B/12 is partly allowed and ITA 1103/B/12 is dismissed

ITA 1266/BANG/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Apr 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, C.AFor Respondent: Shri P. Dhivahar, Jt. CIT(DR)
Section 10BSection 10B(3)

…or the assessment year 2005-06, the Tribunal in the Appellant’s own case had not at all distinguished the order of the Mumbai Bench in the case of D.KishoreKumar & Co vs. ITA Nos. 1093/B0/09, 1266/B/10 & 1057 & 1103/B/12 Page 3 of 50 DCIT reported in (2005) 2 SOT 769 and therefore the CIT(Appeals) ought to have followed the said order of the Mumbai Bench.” 4. The issue that arises for consideration is as to whether receipts from forward contracts can be considered as profits derived from the business for the purpose of computing deduction u/s. 10B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act)? The material facts that are…

M/S K. Mohan & Compnay (Exports) Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. ACIT, Bangalore

In the result, ITA 1057/B/12 is partly allowed and ITA 1103/B/12 is dismissed

ITA 1093/BANG/2009[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Apr 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, C.AFor Respondent: Shri P. Dhivahar, Jt. CIT(DR)
Section 10BSection 10B(3)

…or the assessment year 2005-06, the Tribunal in the Appellant’s own case had not at all distinguished the order of the Mumbai Bench in the case of D.KishoreKumar & Co vs. ITA Nos. 1093/B0/09, 1266/B/10 & 1057 & 1103/B/12 Page 3 of 50 DCIT reported in (2005) 2 SOT 769 and therefore the CIT(Appeals) ought to have followed the said order of the Mumbai Bench.” 4. The issue that arises for consideration is as to whether receipts from forward contracts can be considered as profits derived from the business for the purpose of computing deduction u/s. 10B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act)? The material facts that are…

Kishorekumar & Co. v. DCIT (2 SOT 769) — Cited in 20 Judgments | BharatTax