2016 (10) TMI 629

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....umstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition of 'Mark to Market' Loss of Rs. 78,10,000/made by the Assessing Officer on account of disallowance of loss on foreign exchange forward contract loss and not appreciating the fact that the said loss was a notional loss and hence cannot be allowed" 3. The Respondent Assessee is engaged in the business of import and export of diamonds. During the assessment proceedings, the Officer found that Respondent assessee explained that the amount of Rs. 78.10 lakhs claimed as loss was on account of having entered into hedging transactions to safeguard variation in exchange rates affecting its transactions of import and export by entering into forward contract....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ppeal was dismissed by the impugned order of the Tribunal. 6. Mr.Malhotra, learned Counsel appearing for the Revenue submits that this appeal had to be admitted as the impugned order has ignored its order in the case of S. Vinodkumar Diamonds Pvt.Ltd. vs. Addl. CIT ITA 506/MUM/2013 rendered on 3 May 2013 which on similar facts is in favour of the Revenue. He further submits that the impugned order of the Tribunal is suspect because it accepts the Respondent assessee's claim without calling upon it to prove that the same was not speculative. Lastly, he sought to place reliance upon Accounting Standard11 to claim that such a loss is not allowable thereunder. 7. The impugned order of the Tribunal has, while upholding the finding of the C....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the ground that it was notional. Lastly, the reliance placed on the decision in S. Vinodkumar (supra) in the Revenue's favour would not by itself govern the issues arising herein. This is so as every decision is rendered in the context of the facts which arise before the authority for adjudication. Mere conclusion in favour of the Revenue in another case by itself would not entitle a party to have an identical relief in this case. In fact, if the Revenue was of the view that the facts in S. Vinodkumar (supra) are identical / similar to the present facts, then reliance would have been placed by the Revenue upon it at the hearing before the Tribunal. The impugned order does not indicate any such reliance. It appears that in S. Vinodkumar ....