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 Income Tax Appeals Decision on Loss & Lease Termination Income</h1> <h3>ACIT Central Circle-1 (2) Chennai. Versus M/s. Gimpex Pvt Ltd. (Vice Versa)</h3> ACIT Central Circle-1 (2) Chennai. Versus M/s. Gimpex Pvt Ltd. (Vice Versa) - TMI Issues Involved:1. Nature of loss arising on forward contracts cancelled by the assessee.2. Nature of amount received by the assessee on termination of certain lease agreement.Summary:Issue 1: Nature of Loss on Forward ContractsThe Revenue's appeal questioned whether the loss on forward contracts of Rs. 10.83 Crores should be considered as speculative loss under Sec. 43(5) of the Income Tax Act. The Assessing Officer (AO) had disallowed the loss, classifying it as speculative since the contracts were settled otherwise than by actual delivery. However, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] allowed the loss as business loss, citing that the forward contracts were hedging transactions aimed at safeguarding against foreign exchange fluctuations and were thus exempt under Sec. 43(5)(a). The CIT(A) relied on the jurisdictional Madras High Court decision in CIT Vs. Celebrity Fashions Ltd., which treated similar losses as business losses. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding it consistent with binding judicial precedents and dismissing the Revenue's appeal.Issue 2: Nature of Amount Received on Lease TerminationThe Assessee's appeal contested the treatment of Rs. 3,57,41,297/- received on the termination of a lease agreement as 'income from other sources' instead of 'long term capital gains' or 'income from house property'. The AO had treated the forfeited lease deposit as 'income from other sources', arguing that there was no extinguishment of any right justifying it as capital gains. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision, noting that the amount waived by the lessee was revenue in nature and did not constitute a transfer of any right. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A), concluding that the retained amount was revenue in nature and correctly assessed under 'income from other sources', thereby dismissing the Assessee's appeal.Conclusion:Both appeals were dismissed, affirming the CIT(A)'s decisions on the respective issues. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the impugned orders. Order pronounced on 09th August, 2023.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
