TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (4) TMI 626
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted orders. Appeal wise and ground wise adjudication is given in the following paragraphs. 2. Firstly, we shall take up the cross appeals for the AY 2005-2006. In these two appeals, ITA No.3896/M/2010 is filed by the assessee on 13.5.2010 against the order of the CIT (A)-17, Mumbai dated 5.1.2010. In this appeal, assessee raised the following grounds which read as under: "1. The Ld CIT (A) erred in upholding the order of the AO treating loss of Rs. 1,95,04,886/- arising on cancellation of Forward Exchange Contracts as "Speculation Loss". It is submitted that the appellant is recognized export house. In order to hedge the currency fluctuation, the appellant has entered into the Forward Exchange Contracts. The loss arising on cancellation ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....idu (P) Ltd vs. CIT, 261 ITR 256, the similar issue regarding the taxability of income / loss arising on cancellation of Forward Exchange Contracts was decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. Further, he mentioned that another order of the ITAT, Mumbai in the case of London Star Diamond Company (I) Pvt. Ltd. vide ITA No. 6169/M/2012, dated 11.10.2013, the assessee has a case to win in his favour. Further, Ld Counsel fairly mentioned that this ground may be remanded to the files of the AO for adjudicating the same in the light of the said orders of the Tribunal as well as the binding judgment of the Hon'ble High Court in the case of Badridas Gauridu (P) Ltd (supra). 4. On the other hand, Ld DR has no objection for the sai....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(A)-17, Mumbai dated 5.1.2010 for the assessment year 2005-2010. 10. In this appeal, Revenue raised the following effective ground which reads as under: "1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT (A) erred in deleting addition of Rs. 48,99,803/- on account of diversion of interest bearing funds for providing interest free loans to subsidy companies, without appreciating the facts of the case." 11. At the outset, referring the ground raised by the Revenue, Ld Counsel for the assessee mentioned that identical issue was decided by the CIT (A) in favour of the assessee by following the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S. A. Builders Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) (SC) 288 ITR....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Tribunal in assessment year 2004-2005 in assessee's own case see no infirmity in the order of the CIT (A) allowing the claim and the same is therefore, upheld." 12. Further, he also mentioned that on facts, the funds advanced to the subsidiary companies are one and the same and therefore, the judgments are squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. 13. On the other hand, Ld DR relied on the orders of the Revenue Authorities. 14. We have heard both the parties and peruse the orders of the Revenue Authorities as well as the decisions cited by the Ld Counsel. On hearing both the parties, we find merit in the submissions of the assessee. Considering the contents of para 5 of the CIT (A)'s order, which is cemented by the orders o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to computation of FBT. At the outset, Ld Counsel for the assessee mentioned that there is couple of issues raised in the ground and the first issue relates to taxability of development expenditure as FB and the second one being the bus hire charges incurred for the purpose of transporting the employees to the premises of the assessee. He mentioned that both the issues should be remanded to the files of the AO for adjudicating the issues afresh in the light of the CBDT Circular No.8/2005, dated 29.8.2005. In connection with advertisement / product marketing research expenses being the first issue, Ld Counsel brought our attention to Question No.62 of the said Circular and mentioned that the expenditure of this kind incurred for product marke....