Tribunal allows mark-to-market losses as valid business expenditure, overturning disallowance.

The Tribunal allowed mark to market (MTM) losses as expenditure for a stockbroking company, overturning lower authorities' disallowance. It held that MTM losses, based on accounting standards, were not contingent or notional, contrary to the CBDT instruction. Precedents supported treating such losses as business expenditure, emphasizing they were not merely notional. The Tribunal directed the assessing officer to delete the disallowed deduction, highlighting the distinction between contingent business losses and notional losses.

---

---

Issues:
1. Allowability of mark to market losses as expenditure.
2. Interpretation of CBDT instruction dated 23/3/2010 on notional losses.

Issue 1: Allowability of mark to market losses as expenditure:
The case involved an appeal by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) regarding the Assessment Year 2015-16. The assessee, a company engaged in stock broking, claimed deduction for mark to market (MTM) losses on future and options contracts. The Assessing Officer disallowed the deduction, stating that expected or notional losses cannot be allowed under the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Commissioner upheld this decision, citing a CBDT instruction from 2010. The assessee argued that MTM losses were not contingent or notional but based on recognized accounting standards. The Tribunal analyzed the nature of MTM losses and held that they were allowable as expenditure, overturning the lower authorities' decision.

Issue 2: Interpretation of CBDT instruction dated 23/3/2010 on notional losses:
The CBDT instruction dated 23/3/2010 was a crucial aspect of the case, as it guided the treatment of notional losses. The Commissioner and Assessing Officer relied on this instruction to disallow the assessee's claim for MTM losses, considering them as notional losses. However, the Tribunal examined precedents and relevant case law, including the decision in Kotak Securities Ltd, Mumbai, where similar MTM losses were allowed as business expenditure. Additionally, the Tribunal referred to the Bombay High Court's ruling in PCIT vs International Gold Company Ltd., emphasizing that losses on forward contracts should be allowed as business losses, contrary to being treated as notional losses. Ultimately, the Tribunal concluded that MTM losses arising from contractual obligations should not be considered contingent or notional, and directed the assessing officer to delete the addition made by disallowing the deduction.

This detailed analysis of the judgment showcases the thorough consideration given to the legal issues involved and the application of relevant legal principles and precedents in arriving at the final decision.

---