<?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>2025 (6) TMI 792 - ITAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=772679</link>
    <description>ITAT Chennai rejected the assessee&#039;s natural justice objection because notices were sent to the registered email and the assessee had participated through the ITBA portal, so denial of opportunity was not established. It held that profit from an independent foreign exchange forward contract was revenue in nature and taxable, applying the foreign exchange fluctuation framework including section 43AA and the relevant ICDS. The finance cost and derecognition of financial liability issues were remanded for fresh adjudication due to incomplete facts, while the section 14A disallowance deletion was upheld because no exempt income was earned. The liquidated damages and closing stock additions were also sent back for verification.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 25 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 12 Jun 2025 07:21:33 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=828503" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (6) TMI 792 - ITAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=772679</link>
      <description>ITAT Chennai rejected the assessee&#039;s natural justice objection because notices were sent to the registered email and the assessee had participated through the ITBA portal, so denial of opportunity was not established. It held that profit from an independent foreign exchange forward contract was revenue in nature and taxable, applying the foreign exchange fluctuation framework including section 43AA and the relevant ICDS. The finance cost and derecognition of financial liability issues were remanded for fresh adjudication due to incomplete facts, while the section 14A disallowance deletion was upheld because no exempt income was earned. The liquidated damages and closing stock additions were also sent back for verification.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 25 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=772679</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>