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>NBFC's foreign loan exchange rate losses ruled capital, not revenue; section 14A retrospective application rejected</h1> <h3>Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Central 2 New Delhi Versus M/s. Avantha Realty Ltd.</h3> Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Central 2 New Delhi Versus M/s. Avantha Realty Ltd. - TMI Issues Involved:The appeal by the revenue filed u/s 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench for the assessment year 2004-2005 raises the following substantial questions of law for consideration:a. Treatment of Exchange Rate Losses:The revenue questions the justification of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in not considering exchange rate losses as incidental to the nature of business, citing a similar case precedent. The Court affirmed the Tribunal's decision based on previous rulings.b. Distinction Between Exchange Rate Losses:The revenue challenges the Tribunal's decision by not considering the distinction between exchange rate losses on capital and revenue accounts as per a previous Supreme Court case. The Court found no merit in the revenue's argument.c. Insurance and Audit Fees Expense:The revenue disputes the allowance of insurance and audit fees expenses, claiming the agreement did not cover these expenses. The Court upheld the factual findings of the Tribunal and found no substantial question of law.d. Disallowance under Section 14A:The revenue contested the deletion of disallowance under Section 14A, citing a High Court judgment. The Court agreed with the Tribunal's conclusion that the amendment to Section 14A could not be applied retrospectively.e. Interpretation of CBDT Circular:The revenue argued against ignoring a CBDT circular, stating that disallowance may not be limited to exempt income. The Court upheld the Tribunal's decision against the revenue.f. Treatment of Provision for Doubtful Loans:The revenue challenged the deletion of an addition by the Tribunal regarding the provision for doubtful loans, claiming an upward adjustment should have been made. The Court found the matter to be factual, and no substantial question of law arose.In conclusion, the appeal was dismissed along with the application.
TaxTMI 