2017 (1) TMI 734

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sment u/s. 143(3) of the Act, on 04/09/2013, determining its income at Rs. 38. 65 crores. ITA 1192/MUM/2015 2. The solitary ground of appeal, raised by the AO, is about deleting the disallowance of mark to market (MTM) loss amounting to Rs. 85. 18 lakhs. During the assessment proceedings, had booked losses of Rs. 85, 18, 813/- on MTM in respect of open position in option at the end of the year. He directed the assessee to file details of MTM losses and to explain as to why the same should not be disallowed being notional loss. In its reply dated 25/02/2013, the assessee contended that it followed mercantile system of accounting and had anticipated losses at the year end with respect to equity index/stock future in accordance with the prov....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....made elaborate submissions. After considering the available material, the FAA referred to the cases of Edelweiss Capital Ltd. (ITA/5324/MUM/2007, dated10/11/2012)and Kotak Mahindra Investment Limited(ITA/ 1502/MUM/2012, dated 03/05/2013) and allowed the claim made by the assessee under the head MTM losses. 4. During the course of hearing before us, the Departmental Representative (DR) supported the order of the AO. The Authorised Representative (AR) relied upon the cases of Centrum Broking Ltd. (70 SOT 389) & Kotak Mahindra Investment Ltd. (59 SOT 4). 5. We find that the issue stands decided in favour of the assessee by the Tribunal in the matters relied upon by the AR. It is found that in the of the Kotak Mahindra Investment Ltd. (supra)....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....and last date of the previous year, made an addition of Rs. 6. 43 lakhs(. 5% of the average of the investment). 7. During the appellate proceedings, the assessee made submissions before the FAA and relied upon the cases of Hero Cycles Ltd. (322 ITR 513), Yetish Trading Company Pvt. Ltd. (129 ITD 237)and Ganjam Trading company Ltd (ITA 3724/MUM/2005). After considering the submissions of the assessee and the assessment order, the FAA held that disallowance made by the AO was in order for the reasons mentioned in the assessment order. 8. During the course of hearing before us, the AR relied upon the case of HDFC Bank Ltd. (67 Taxmann. com42 of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court). The DR left the issue to the discretion of the Bench. We have hea....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the initial payment on behalf of the assessee, that subsequently a debit note on the assessee was raised, that assets were owned by the assessee and were used during the year under consideration. The AO held that assessee was not the owner of the assets, that it had not produced any documentary evidence to prove the payment was made by it, that it was not eligible for claiming depreciation for the said assets. Finally, he made the disallow - ance of Rs. 10, 63, 266/-. 10. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Authority (FAA). Before him, it was argued that assets were initially purchased by the Hong Kong group of company, that same were shipped to India subsequently, that the assessee....