2017 (7) TMI 212

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of the Commissioner (Appeals). 2. The appellant has filed appeal No.1554 of 2014 on the following question of law: (A) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in deleting the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer of Rs. 2,10,00,000/on rent expenses which was confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) without appreciating the fact that the expenses claimed by the assessee have not been spent for earning declared income shown and all the rented premises was not wholly and exclusively used for the purpose of business as required under the provisions of section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act,1961 ? and Appeal No.1215 of 2014 is filed on the following question of law: (A) Whether on t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....arket' loss did not pertain to earning of exempt income and further there was no receipt on sale of shares derivatives. The learned Counsel submits that the similar issue had arisen in Income Tax Appeal No.845 of 2014 and Income Tax Appeal No.1521 of 2012 which are admitted by this Court. The learned Counsel further submits that the reliance placed by the respondent and the Tribunal on the judgment of Apex Court in the case "Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Woodward Governor India P.Ltd." reported in (2009) 312 ITR 254 (SC), is misplaced. In the said case before the Apex Court, the loss suffered by the assessee was on account of fluctuation in the rate of foreign exchange. According to the learned Counsel, the transaction being speculativ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sing Officer that the assessee has spent the actual amount of rent and had used the said premises for his business, may not be for the business which was to be commenced but was being used for the business as provided under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act 8. We have considered the submissions canvassed by the learned Counsel for the respective parties. As far as the question of law framed by the revenue with regard to "Mark to Market" loss is concerned, there is nothing on record even remotely to suggest that the transaction in question was a speculative one. The assessing officer had not disallowed the said claim. In an appeal filed by the assessee, the Commissioner (Appeals) for the first time that too in an appeal of the assessee ha....