2015 (8) TMI 1471

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nd disposed of in this consolidated order. 2. Since, the Revenue raised the identical Grounds in both the appeals under consideration, for the sake of reference, the Grounds raised in the appeal ITA No.764/M/2014 (AY 2009-2010) which read as under: "1. Whether on the facts and circumstances and in law, the Ld CIT (A) has erred in holding that "Mark to Market" loss of Rs. 6,11,76,098/- arising on valuation of forward exchange contracts on the closing date of accounting year is not a notional loss and, therefore, allowable. 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT (A) was right in not taking cognizance of the decision of the ITAT, "E" Bench, Mumbai in ITA No. 506/Mum/2013 dated 3.5.2013 in the case of ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....counting year on notional basis. In this regard, Ld Counsel brought our attention to the orders of the ITAT, Mumbai in the cases of ACIT vs. C.J. Exports in ITA No. 2612/M/2013 (AY 2009-2010) and also the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Ratandeep Impex vs. ACIT in ITA No.4861/M/2011 (AY 2007-2008), copies of which are made available on record, and mentioned that an identical issue was adjudicated by the Tribunal in favour favour of the assessee and the said loss was allowed as „business loss‟. He also relied on the various decisions, which are decided in favour of the assessee on identical issue. Ld Counsel for the assessee submitted that the issue may be decided in favour of the assessee considering the commonness of is....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ssue was held to be covered by Special Bench decision in the case of DCIT vs. Bank of Bahrain. Therefore, in my considered opinion the facts of the appellant‟s case are fully covered by the above cited decisions of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court and the ITAT Mumbai Bench. Accordingly, I hold that the loss incurred by the appellant on restatement of pending forward contract agreements at the year-end is an allowable business loss. Appellant succeeds on this ground." 5. From the above, it is evident that the Mark-to-Market gain or loss is held as allowable gain or loss as the case may be. In the instant case, loss of Rs. 1,06,90,750/- arising on re-valuation of forward contract agreements on 31st March, 2009. Thus, the order of the C....