TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal upholds MTM losses on equity stock in revenue appeals</h1> <h3>Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 5 (2) (1) Mumbai Versus M/s JNJ Holdings Pvt. Ltd.</h3> Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 5 (2) (1) Mumbai Versus M/s JNJ Holdings Pvt. Ltd. - TMI Issues Involved:1. Allowability of Mark to Market (MTM) loss on closing stock of equity shares.2. Validity of jurisdiction assumed by the A.O. for reopening the assessee's case u/s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.3. Disallowance of Provision for MTM margin Equity Stock Future.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Allowability of Mark to Market (MTM) Loss on Closing Stock of Equity Shares:The primary issue contested in both appeals (A.Y. 2009-10 and A.Y. 2013-14) concerns the allowability of MTM loss on the closing stock of equity shares. The assessee, engaged in the business of investment and dealing in shares and securities, valued its stock-in-trade at cost or market value, whichever is lower, as mandated by the Non-Banking Financial Companies Prudential Norms (Reserve Bank) Directions, 1998.For A.Y. 2009-10, the A.O. disallowed the MTM loss of Rs. 10,68,95,694/- citing the Explanation to Section 73 of the IT Act, 1961, which treats losses from share trading as speculation losses. The A.O. relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Chainrup Sampatram Vs. CIT (1953) to argue that the valuation of closing stock at less than cost is an anticipated loss from the business of purchase and sale of shares.The CIT(A) overturned the A.O.'s decision, citing prior Tribunal decisions in the assessee's favor for A.Y. 2002-03, A.Y. 2003-04, A.Y. 2010-11, and A.Y. 2011-12, where similar disallowances were vacated. The Tribunal observed that the assessee consistently followed this valuation method, which had been accepted by the department.For A.Y. 2013-14, the facts and issues remained identical. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow the MTM loss of Rs. 2,79,95,384/-, following the same rationale as in A.Y. 2009-10.2. Validity of Jurisdiction Assumed by the A.O. for Reopening the Assessee's Case u/s. 147:During the appeal for A.Y. 2009-10, the assessee challenged the validity of the A.O.'s jurisdiction for reopening the case under Section 147. However, the Tribunal noted that the assessee did not file a cross-appeal, cross-objection, or preliminary objection. Consequently, the Tribunal refrained from adjudicating on this issue.3. Disallowance of Provision for MTM Margin Equity Stock Future:For A.Y. 2013-14, the A.O. disallowed Rs. 4,44,461/- as Provision for MTM margin Equity Stock Future, treating it as a contingent liability. The CIT(A) vacated this disallowance, relying on Tribunal orders for A.Y. 2010-11 and A.Y. 2011-12, where similar disallowances were overturned.The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, referencing the Supreme Court ruling in CIT vs. Woodward Governor India P. Ltd. (2009) 312 ITR 254 (SC), which supports the recognition of MTM losses on the balance sheet date as allowable expenses under Section 37(1) of the Act.Conclusion:The appeals filed by the revenue for both A.Y. 2009-10 and A.Y. 2013-14 were dismissed. The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s decisions allowing the MTM losses on closing stock of equity shares and the provision for MTM margin Equity Stock Future, based on consistent application of valuation methods and established judicial precedents.
TaxTMI 