https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=410290 The Tribunal allowed the appeal, deleting the disallowance of Rs. 4,04,22,093/- claimed by the appellant for the assessment year 2016-17. The Tribunal held that the appellant's consistent accounting method, supported by judicial decisions, justified the allowance of the loss. The Tribunal found the AO's reliance on CBDT instruction no. 3/2010 misplaced, as it did not apply to the appellant's hedging transactions. Disallowing the loss would result in double disallowance, which was deemed prejudicial to the appellant. Consequently, the disallowance was overturned, and the appeal was successful. en-us Mon, 26 Jul 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 29 Jul 2021 07:57:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=410290 The Tribunal allowed the appeal, deleting the disallowance of Rs. 4,04,22,093/- claimed by the appellant for the assessment year 2016-17. The Tribunal held that the appellant's consistent accounting method, supported by judicial decisions, justified the allowance of the loss. The Tribunal found the AO's reliance on CBDT instruction no. 3/2010 misplaced, as it did not apply to the appellant's hedging transactions. Disallowing the loss would result in double disallowance, which was deemed prejudicial to the appellant. Consequently, the disallowance was overturned, and the appeal was successful. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 26 Jul 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=410290