TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (9) TMI 469
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d in law and on facts in deleting disallowance of unrealized profit on forward exchange contract (original addition of Rs. 143241170/- later reduced to Rs. 3338429/- vide order u/s. 154 dated 19.2.2010). ii) In the facts and circumstance of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 14,00,000/- on account of capitalization of legal and professional charges. iii) In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting addition of Rs. 196020/- on account of disallowance of extra depreciation on computer peripherals/ accessories. iv) The appellant craves leave for reserving the right to amend, modify, alter, add or forego any ground(s) of appeal a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... assessee and he proceeded to make the said addition. Subsequently, in application u/s. 154, the Assessing Officer retained the addition to Rs. 33,38,429/- only. 4. Before the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A), it was submitted that the assessee had covered its possible loss on account of fluctuation of foreign exchange by hedging the same by way of forward contract for the same. Assessee further referred to the Notes on Accounts and submitted that while the assessee had earned a notional gain of Rs. 33,38,429/-. It was articulated that this profit had already been disclosed as 'unrealised profit on forward exchange contracts and financial instruments' in Schedule-VI. It was claimed that the gain had been offered for tax by crediting in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he company in its computation of income. Corresponding entry is also disclosed as 'Unrealized Profit on Forward Exchange Contracts and Financial Instruments' in Schedule 6 "Loans and Advances". Ld. Counsel of the assessee contended that addition on account of the same would tantamount to double taxation since the gain will doubly offered to tax, once by assessee himself and secondly, by the Assessing Officer. 6.1 Ld. Departmental Representative could not controvert the aforesaid submissions of the assessee. 7. We have carefully considered the submissions and perused the records. We find that the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) has given a finding that the assessee has already offered the impugned amount in its audited accounts. Hen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rely on adhoc basis. In so far as Die Modification charges are concerned, it was submitted that the amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- was paid to technical service providers for 'Die' being used by the company. This was a general and a regular payment. So far as the payment of Rs. 1,00,000/- was concerned, it was stated that this court fee was paid for the SLP as filed. There was no enduring benefit. Considering the aforesaid, Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) observed that it was crystal clear to him that the payments were made by the assessee in the ordinary course of business. There was nothing which would suggest that an asset had come into place which was enduring in nature, considering the fact that endurance per se is considered to be a dete....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a Safety Glass Ltd. (2011) (Del. H.C.). 11.1 Ld. Departmental Representative on the other hand relied upon the order of the Assessing Officer. 11.2 We have carefully considered the submissions. We find that the expenditure in this regard has been incurred for fee paid to Advocates in respect of SLP filed before the Supreme Court, die modification charges and payment of court fees. In this regard, we agree with the contention of the assessee which was already upheld by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) that assessee had not obtained benefit of any enduring nature by way of this expenditure. Under the circumstances, these expenditures which are incurred in the ordinary course of business have to be allowed to the assessee and the s....