<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2015 (11) TMI 417 - ITAT KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=267608</link>
    <description>The appeal of the assessee was allowed, and the loss incurred on forward contracts was treated as a business loss. The Tribunal held that the forward contracts were entered into for hedging purposes in the regular course of business, following legal precedents that losses from such contracts should be treated as business losses. The order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) treating the loss as speculation loss was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 29 Sep 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 09 Nov 2015 21:44:17 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=404825" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (11) TMI 417 - ITAT KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=267608</link>
      <description>The appeal of the assessee was allowed, and the loss incurred on forward contracts was treated as a business loss. The Tribunal held that the forward contracts were entered into for hedging purposes in the regular course of business, following legal precedents that losses from such contracts should be treated as business losses. The order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) treating the loss as speculation loss was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 29 Sep 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=267608</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>