TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (3) TMI 1182
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2010-2011. 2. The appeal is preferred under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short 'the Act']. In this appeal, which is, instituted by the revenue, the following substantial questions of law have been suggested for being framed and adjudicated upon by this Court: "a) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, ITAT misinterpreted the scope of Section 14A(1) of the Act and errored in holding that Section 14(A) can only be invoked if the Respondent has earned exempted income during the assessment year ignoring the fact that Section 14A doesn't lay down such requirement and the only precondition for invoking Section 14A is that there must be "expenditure incurred in relation to such income which does not form ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... be set off against the taxable income in view of the CBDT's instruction no. 3 of 2010 dated 23.03.2010?" 3. Insofar as the first three questions of law i.e. (a), (b) and (c), as suggested by the revenue, are concerned, Mr. Raghvendra Kishore Singh, who appears for the revenue, fairly submits that they are covered by the judgement of the coordinate Bench of this Court rendered in Joint Investments (P.) Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, [2015] 372 ITR 694 (Delhi). 4. As regards the fourth question of law, that is set out in clause (d) above, as suggested by the revenue, is concerned, once again, Mr. Singh submits that the same is covered by the judgement of the coordinate Bench of this Court in Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Bharti Hexa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... has relied upon the judgement of the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court in Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle vs. Wipro Finance Ltd., [2013] 351 ITR 153 (Karnataka). 8.2. Mr. Singh says that two out of the six conditions have not been fulfilled by the assessee. These being: "(ii) Whether the same system is followed by the assessee from the very beginning and if there was a change in the system, whether the change was bona fide; (iv) Whether the assessee has been consistent and definite in making entries in the account books in respect of losses and gains." 9. Mr. Ajay Vohra, learned senior counsel, who appears on advance notice on behalf of the assessee, emphatically states that all the conditions stipulated in Woodwa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....epayment of such loans; and (a) The term "expenditure" in s.37 covers an amount which is a "loss" even though the said amount has not gone out from the pocket of the assessee. The "loss" suffered by the assessee on account of the exchange difference as on the date of the balance sheet is an item of expenditure u/s 37(1); (b) Profits and gains are required to be computed in accordance with commercial principles and accounting standards (AS-11); (c) Accounts and the accounting method followed by an assessee continuously for a given period of time needs to be presumed to be correct till the AO comes to the conclusion for reasons to be given that the system does not reflect true and correct profits; (d) The fact that the department taxe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....arnataka High Court in Wipro Finance Ltd. (supra) are extracted hereafter: "4. The view taken by the Supreme Court in this judgment is to the effect that while even a notional loss can be claimed by way of a business loss and as a deductible item in computing the income of the assessee for the year, as it is a computation on notional basis, it is made dependent on the manner of conduct of the assessee in respect of the earlier assessment period and particularly as to the assessee has been following this uniformly over a period of years and the test being when there was a notional gain as to whether it had been offered for tax etc. The Supreme Court took the view that such claim can be entertained subject to fulfillment of the following si....