https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=283981 The ITAT Mumbai upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow mark to market losses as business losses for the assessment year 2009-10. The Tribunal emphasized the concept of "crystallization of liability" and rejected the Revenue's argument that liability only arises upon contract maturity. It noted that the appellant's forward contracts were hedged against debtors, following the precedent set by the ITAT Special Bench in a similar case. The appeal of the revenue was dismissed, affirming the allowance of mark to market loss as a business loss. en-us Wed, 07 Oct 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 23 Oct 2019 07:54:37 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=283981 The ITAT Mumbai upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow mark to market losses as business losses for the assessment year 2009-10. The Tribunal emphasized the concept of "crystallization of liability" and rejected the Revenue's argument that liability only arises upon contract maturity. It noted that the appellant's forward contracts were hedged against debtors, following the precedent set by the ITAT Special Bench in a similar case. The appeal of the revenue was dismissed, affirming the allowance of mark to market loss as a business loss. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 07 Oct 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=283981