TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (9) TMI 1598
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y, notice under section 143(2) dated 24.08.2011 was issued and served on the assessee. In response to the notice, the assessee's Authorised Representative appeared before the A.O. and filed the details called for. During the year under consideration, the assessee-company shown short term capital gain of Rs. 191,11,60,784/- on purchase and sale of shares of Sesa Goa Ltd. The company offered this income as short term capital gain. The assessee company was requested to explain why the short term capital gain shown by it should not be treated as business income. The assessee-company submitted that the company shown the purchase of the shares as investment in the books. The company's main business is mining. The company's memorandum of association permits for purchase and sale of shares. In the earlier years department accepted the purchase and sale of share as investment activity of the assessee. The shares of Sesa Goa Ltd., are purchased and sold through dematerialized account and transactions suffered Security Transaction Tax and the period of holding is less than 12 months. Hence, these are treated as short term capital gains. In support of its contention, the assessee relied on....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the AO in the sum of Rs. 1,17,09,419/- incurred abroad on account of supervision charges at discharge port and Rs. 5,77,23,014/- incurred abroad on professional and consultancy fees by invoking the provisions of section 40 (a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. (b) Without prejudice, the CIT(A) ought to have deleted the entire addition in the sum of Rs. 6,94,32,433/- in view of the fact that the explanation to section 9(1)(vii) inserted by the Finance Act. 2010 got the assent of the President on 08/05/2010 and hence not applicable for the assessment year under appeal. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition made by the AO towards contribution of Rs. 20,00,000/- given to a school for construction of building by holding that it is in the nature of capital expenditure. Similarly, the CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance made by AO of a sum of Rs. 81,16,257/- incurred on repair and renovation of two temples situated in mining areas by holding that they do not come under the purview of current repairs. The whole of the addition in the sum of Rs. 1,01,16,257/- be deleted in full. 6. The Appellant craves leave to add, to alter or vary any of the Grou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the similar line of business under business strategy, thus, income arose is business income. Therefore, the authorities have rightly made the impugned addition treating the income accrued to assessee as business income. The Ld. D.R. prayed that the orders of the lower authorities be confirmed. 7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We find that in the instant case the assessee company has purchased shares of 3,38,03,812 in M/s. Sesa Goa Ltd. during AY 2009-10, and all the shares were sold during the impugned A.Y. 2010-11 by holding the shares for a period of more than 06 months. 8. The ld. Counsel has relied on the following judgements:- (i) Raja Bahadur Kamakhya Narain Singh, 77 ITR 253 (SC); (ii) CIT vs. Gopal Purohit, 336 ITR 287 (Bom); (iii) CIT vs. Vinay Mittal, (2012) 208 Taxman 106; (iv) Business Match Services (I) (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT, 43 ITR (T) 15 (Mumbai); (v) PCIT vs. Business Match Services (I) (P) Ltd. (2018) 100 taxmann.com 411 (Bombay); and (vi) PCIT vs. Viksit Engineering Ltd., (2018) 100 taxmann.com 436. 9. From the assessment order, we observe that the AO has....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the case of Paimia Cement Ltd..vs. CIT (Pat) 12 ITR 50. (iii) Purchase and sale of shares in a Private company within a short period is adventure in the nature of trade even if such shares are shown as investments in the books of accounts. This was so held in the case of V. Amiratham Ammal vs. CIT (Mad) 7,4 ITR 739 and Burnside Investment & Holdings Ltd., Vs. CIT (ITAT, Mad), 61 ITD 501. (iv) There is nothing on record to show that purchase of shares was for non- commercial purpose. Shares sold within a short period and the manner in which shares are shown in the balance sheet is not conclusive. Purchase and sale of shares within a short period is to be treated as business income irrespective of the treatment given to the shares in the balance sheet viz. whether shown under the head investment or under the head stock-in- trade. This was so held in the following cases: a. CIT Vs. Karam Chand Thapar & Bros.Pvt. Ltd., (SC) 176 ITR 535 b. New Era Agencies Pvt. Ltd., Vs. CIT (SC) 68 ITR 585 c. Matheson Bosanquet Enterprises Ltd., Vs. DCIT (Mad) 316 ITR 375 V) Transaction in exchange traded derivatives - life of short duration and th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2009 vide 24 contract notes on different dates shares (1,37,33,892 shares) worth Rs. 122.38 crores were bought. Thus, during Financial year 2008-09, appellant bought 3,38,03,812 shares worth Rs. 362.32 crores of single company M/s Sesa Goa Ltd.. The AR of the appellant did not show any earlier evidences that the appellant company had made such huge investments in the shares of a single company. The appellant company, no doubt, has been making investments in the shares of some companies year after year but such investments were in smaller quantities and the portfolio was spread over various companies. The appellant does have the investments in the shares of other companies as well. But, after going through the mode and quantity of investment in the shares of a single company i.e. Sesa Goa Ltd., it can be reasonably be held that the buying of shares of Sesa Goa Ltd. was not for the purpose of investment but was a major business decision to acquire a particular percentage of stake in Sesa Goa Ltd.. Therefore, acquiring of 3.38 crores shares of a single company cannot be merely with an intention to make investment and to earn dividend from such investment. 4.5. The said shares....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed with the normal investments the appellant was making in the regular course of appellant's business. 4.8. On examination of the manner in which the Appellant carried out its activity of purchase and sale of shares of Sesa Goa Ltd., the following facts have emerged: "(a) The appellant has carried out series of transactions to purchase the shares of a single company which normally an investor will never do. This proves beyond doubt that the appellant had business motive of acquiring a stake in Sesa Goa Ltd., which cannot be considered as normal investment. It needs to be remembered that the appellant purchased 3.38 crore shares of Sesa Goa Ltd. for total consideration of Rs. 362.32 crores. (b) In majority of the cases, shares are purchased in huge quantity and holding period of shares were not significant and was in the range of 6 to 8 months. Further, the shares were purchased first in F. Y. 2008-09 and sold in F. Y. 200910. (c) Further, the value of the shares transacted by the appellant runs into crores of rupees. It cannot be said that the appellant has carried out investments in those shares and that to the shares of a single company, Se....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nion that acquiring shares of Sesa Goa Ltd. was a business decision and therefore, the gain earned on sale of the said shares has to be brought to tax as income from business. Accordingly, the action of the AO in treating the gain from sale of shares of Sesa Goa Ltd. as business income is upheld." 11. After careful consideration of facts and circumstances pertaining to the present issue, we observe that the assessee purchased shares of Sesa Goa Ltd., during F.Y. 2008-09 (AY 2009-10) and sold the same during the next FY 2009-10 pertaining to present AY 2010-11 during the period from 14.04.2009 to 13.06.2009 for a total consideration of Rs. 554.23 crores and earning gain of Rs. 191.11 crores. The ld. Counsel of the assessee, during the arguments have agreed to the submissions of the ld.CIT-DR that for analyzing the intention of the assessee as to whether it wants to invest or do business, the magnitude of purchase and sale of shares of a single company i.e., Sesa Goa Ltd., was very large as the assessee had purchased 3.38 crores shares within a period of less than one year. In our considered opinion, the present case is not pertaining to purchase and sale of shares intermittently ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hus, the decision to buy a large quantity of shares of a single company having similar kind of business and after holding the shares for some months selling the almost entire stock/shares cannot be tagged as investment, but, it was a strategic business decision and, thus, adventure in the nature of trade. The magnitude and quantity of shares purchased in one financial year and after holding for some months the sale of the same during immediately next FY is a strategic business decision as the turnover in the case of appellant from sale of shares of Sesa Goa Ltd., during the impugned previous year 2009-10 was Rs. 554.23 crores which is clearly indicative that there was systematic and strategic business decision which was not an investment but was an activity of business and adventure in the nature of trade undertaken by the appellant. 14. Undisputedly, the assessee has shown the amounts pertaining to the transaction of purchase of shares of Sesa Goa Ltd. as investment in the balance sheet, but, the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court of Bombay in the case of Gopal Purohit (supra) as also relied on by the ld. Counsel of the assessee, has held that though the entries in the books of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ess Match Services (supra) is not applicable to the present case in favour of assessee. 17. The ld. Counsel has also relied on the judgement of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court of Bombay in the case of PCIT vs. Viksit Engineering Ltd. (supra) to submit that when the assessee had maintained two portfolios, one for investment and the other for trading holding the shares for a short period, then, this will not convert the capital gain into business income and, thus, the amount in question has to be taxed as short-term capital gain. On respectful and careful reading of this judgement, we observe that in this case the assessee claimed short-term capital gain and, during assessment proceedings, the Respondent-assessee was called upon to show as to why income shown as short-term capital gain should not be treated as business income and the assessee replied that its regular business is to trade in engineering goods metal and other commodities. It had also made investments in shares over the last 10-15 years without any borrowings. When we analyse the facts and circumstances of the present case, we clearly noted that on the issue involved in the present case, the AO has noted certai....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rved that the stipulation of Section 14A is to quantify the amount of expenditure which is not allowable as it is relatable to the earning of exempt income. Since the assessee company has not been able to show before the A.O. as to how the specific amount of expenditure claimed had been incurred towards earning the income exempt from tax during the relevant period, therefore, the A.O. invoked the provisions of Section 8D of I.T. Rules, 1962 along with provisions of Section 14A and computed the disallowance of Rs. 1,16,66,040/-. While making the net addition of Rs. 1,05,21,316/-, the A.O. reduced an amount of Rs. 11,44,724/- which was already claimed as expenditure against the exempt income by the assessee company i.e., [Rs. 1,16,66,040 (-) Rs. 11,44,724/- = Rs. 1,05,21,316/-]. 21. Aggrieved by the order of the A.O. the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) observed that the A.O. while determining the disallowance has considered the shares of M/s. Sesa Goa Ltd., as investment for the purpose of section 14A r.w. Rule 8D, which action of the A.O. in treating the gain from sale of shares of M/s. Sesa Goa Ltd., as business income has been confirm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ded the issue partly confirming the disallowance made by the AO u/s 14A of the Act r.w.r 8D(2)(iii) of the Rules with the following observations and findings:- "5.2 I have gone through the submissions of the AR of the appellant. The appellant has received a tax free dividend of Rs. 5,83,58,130/- and therefore as per the decision of KLJ Organics Ltd. referred by the appellant, disallowance u/s 14A is applicable to the facts of the appellant's case. It is an admitted fact that the appellant had earned tax-free dividend income of Rs. 5,83,58,130/- during the year out of the investments made, however the appellant has suo-moto disallowed megre expenditure of Rs. 11,44,724/- which was claimed incurred for earning the said exempt income. During the assessment proceedings, A.O. has applied Rule 8D and worked out the administrative cost disallowance at Rs. 1,16,66,040/-. I find the appellant's contention that megre expenditure of Rs. 11,44,724/- is incurred for the average investments worth Rs. 233,32,08,055/- for purpose of maintaining the investments that earn tax free income has been rightly rejected by the A.O. The appellant has an average investment portfolio of more than....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....has erred in confirming the disallowance at the rate of 0.50% of the average value of such investments (which includes some equity shares and infrastructure units on which no dividend had been received during the assessment year) under Rule 8D(2) (Hi) of the Income Tax Rules. Where no exempt income has arisen out of such assets they cannot be a contributory to any expenses in connection with the exempt income. ' 5.5. Hon' Tribunal has after analysing the issue has held as under: "5. We have considered the rival submissions of the Id. representatives. In our view, the contention of the Id. A.R. that the disallowance under Rule 8(2)(iii) in respect of administrative and managerial expenses out of the common pool of expenses in relation to exempt income is to be made even if no exempt income is earned out of such investments. Rule 8(2)(iii) is clear in this respect which for the sake of convenience is reproduced as under: "an amount equal to one-half per cent of the average of the value of investment, income from which does not or shall not form part of the total income, as appearing in the balance sheet of the assessee, on the first day and the last day of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Sesa Goa Ltd. as investment for the purpose of section 14A r.w. Rule 8D. In para 4 above, I have confirmed the action of the AO in treating the gain from sale of shares of Sesa Goa Ltd. as business income. Hence, the AO is directed to reduce the amount of investment in Sesa Goa Ltd. shares from the average investment and re-work the disallowance u/s. 14A r.w. Rule 8D. Ground No. 3 is considered to be partly allowed." 25. In view of the foregoing observations and findings recorded by the ld.CIT(A), we clearly noted that the ld. CIT(A) while adjudicating and dismissing ground No. 2 of the assessee concluded that the acquiring of shares of Sesa Goa Ltd. was a business decision and, therefore, the gain earned on sale of said shares has to be brought to tax ax income from business or business income. Thereafter, while disallowing ground No. 3 of the assessee pertaining to disallowance u/s 14A of the Act r.w.r 8D of 1962, the ld.CIT(A) in para 5.6 (supra) also took care of the above conclusion pertaining to ground No. 2 and directed the AO to reduce the amount in Sesa Goa as shares from the average investment/work, the disallowance u/s 14A of the Act r.w.r. 8D(2)(iii) of the Rules. We....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as an issue of company's income from ISO 9000 Certification. In the case of ONGC vs. DCIT, the issue was rendering professional legal services abroad and certain amount paid to an Australian company for construction, installation and maintenance of high resolution CT scan facility whereas in the present case the issue is pertaining to TDS on demand on account of supervision charges at discharged port and on professional and consultancy fees paid by the assessee without complying with the TDS provisions. Therefore, we respectfully hold that the above judgement of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of DCIT vs. TUV Bayren, order of the ITAT Mumbai in the case of TUV Bayren (supra) and order of the ITAT Delhi in the case of ONGC (supra) having dissimilar facts and circumstances, have no application to the facts and circumstances of the present case. Therefore, benefit of these judgements/orders are not available to the assessee in the present case. 28. Further, the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of PCIT vs. Ajeet Ramakant Phatarpekar (supra) considered five substantial questions of law as noted in para 4 of the judgement, but, the issue pertaining to payments mad....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es that, however, such royalties and technical/consultancy fees may also be taxed in the contracting state in which they arise and according to the laws of that state. As per the Indian law, these fees are deemed to accrue or arise in India. Referring to Article 8 of the DTAA it was observed by the AO that the profit derived by an enterprise of a contracting state from operation by that enterprise of ships or aircraft in international territory shall be taxable only in that state. Thus, there is difference between Article 12 and Article 8 and in view of the specific provision of Article 12 the royalties and technical/consultancy fees may also be taxed in the contracting state in which they arise and according to the laws of that state. The non-resident will only get double taxation benefit in their respective countries but they have to pay the tax in India for services rendered by them and therefore, the Assessee was liable to deduct TDS as per the provisions of Sec. 195. The Assessee went in appeal before the CIT(A) and submitted that the Assessee has made payment to Zhao Long (Asia) Ltd., Hong Kong amounting to Rs. 17,43,033/- and Delong Mineral & Logistic PTE Ltd. of Rs. 11,44,9....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... alongwith the order of the tax authorities below. The issue before us is whether any disallowance can be made u/s 40(a)(i). The AO during the course of the assessment proceedings noted that the Assessee has made payment amounting to Rs. 28,87,983/- to Hongkong and Singapore parties, Rs. 17,43,033/- to Zhao Long (Asia) Ltd. for monitoring, supervision of discharged cargo, draft survey, joint sampling of discharged cargo, photographs, sample preparation and sealing of samples, analysis of the grades etc. Copies of the bills were placed at pg. 134-140 of the paper book. From all the bills it is apparent that these services were rendered in the People's Republic of China. Similarly, the Assessee has paid a sum of Rs. 11,44,950/- to De Long Minerals and Logistics Pte Ltd., Singapore for supervision of the vessel at the discharge port. The payment has been made through DBS Bank Ltd., Singapore. Details of the payments made are given at pg. 133 of the paper book. From these payments, it is apparent that the payment of Rs. 2,58,506/- does not relate to the impugned assessment year. Rest of the payments was made prior to 31.3.2010. The Revenue was of the opinion that due to retrospecti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iness connection in India or (b) the non-resident has rendered services in India. Similar view has been taken by the coordinate Mumbai bench of this Tribunal in the case of Ashapura Minichem Ltd. vs. ADIT, 40 SOT 220 (Mum.) in which it was observed as under : "9. The legal proposition canvassed by the learned counsel, however, does no longer hold good in view of retrospective amendment with effect from 1-6-1976 in section 9 brought out by the Finance Act, 2010. Under the amended Explanation to section 9(1), as it exists on the statute now, it is specifically stated that the income of the non-resident shall be deemed to accrue or arise in India under clause (v) or clause (vi) or clause (vii) of section 9(1), and shall be included in his total income, whether or not (a) the non-resident has a residence or place of business or business connection in India; or (b) the non-resident has rendered services in India. It is thus no longer necessary that, in order to attract taxability in India, the services must also be rendered in India. As the law stands now, utilization of these services in India is enough to attract its taxability in India. To that effect, recent amendment in th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., 2010 received the assent of the President on 8.5.2010 and all the payments have been made by the Assessee to the non-resident party prior to receiving of assent of the President making the retrospective amendment by adding explanation to Sec. 9(1). At the time when the Assessee made the payment there was no provision u/s 9(1) making the technical fees deemed to accrue or arise in India whether or not (a) the non- resident has residence or place of business or business connection in India or (b) the non-resident has rendered services in India. It is not disputed by the ld. DR that the non-resident did not have residence or place of business or business connection in India. The nonresident has also not rendered services in India. The source of the income in the hands of the non-resident was outside India. Even the place of business which earned the income was also outside India. Since the technical fees was not deemed to accrue or arise in India at the time when the Assessee made the payment as there was no provision under Sec. 9(1), the income received by the non-resident as per the existing law at the time when the Assessee made the payment, in our opinion, was not taxable in Ind....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the financial year 2003-04 when as per the relevant legal position prevalent in the financial year 2003-04, the obligation to deduct tax was not on the assessee. The Tribunal based its decision on a legal Maxim lex non cogit ad impossiblia meaning thereby that the law cannot possibly compel a person to do something which is impossible to perform and relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Krishna Swamy S. PD and Another v. Union of India and others 281 ITR 305 wherein the said legal Maxim was accepted by the Hon'ble apex court. 26. In view of the above discussion, we are of the view that the amount in question paid by the assessee to SSA was not taxable in India in the hands of SSA either u/s.9(1)(vi) or 9(1)(vii) as per the legal position prevalent at the relevant time and the assessee therefore was not liable to deduct tax at source from the said amount paid to M/s. SSA and there was no question of disallowing the said amount by invoking the provisions of sec.40(a)(i). In that view of the matter, we delete the disallowance made by the AO u/s.40(a)(i) and confirmed by Ld. CIT (A) and allow ground No. 1 of the assessee's appeal." ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g contribution towards construction of school building, the assessee has not acquired any capital asset and have only claimed depreciation in this regard. The ld. Counsel further explained that this contribution towards construction of school building has been made by the assessee to have cordial relation and betterment of the villagers living around the mining activities area of the assessee. The ld. Counsel further submitted that the ld.CIT(A) has also erred in confirming the disallowance made by the AO of a sum of Rs. 81,16,257/- incurred on repair and renovation of two temples do not come under the purview of current repairs. The ld. Counsel further submitted that this expenditure has also been incurred to maintain and establish cordial relation and betterment of the villages residing around the vicinity of the mines and working area of the assessee and the assessee having incurred this expenditure out of business expediency as without incurring such expenditure it is not possible to conduct smooth functioning of mining, therefore, both the expenditure may kindly be allowed as revenue expenditure incurred out of business expediency without acquiring any capital asset. The ld. C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed on repair and renovation of two temples situated in mining areas of the assessee. ITA No. 116/PAN/2018 (AY: 2010-11) 35. The grounds raised by the Revenue read as under:- "1. Whether on facts and in circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing fluctuation loss on sale proceeds of EEFC account, while such a notional loss being contingent in nature cannot be allowed to be set off against the taxable income? 2. Whether on facts and in circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing the said loss claimed in respect of sale proceeds which were already received by the assessee and the assessee was not under obligation to keep sale proceeds under EEFC account? Once income is received, it is capital and any loss on account of the same cannot be revenue expenditure. 3. For the above grounds and any additional grounds that may be agitated during the course of the hearing it is prayed that the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-2, Panaji may be quashed and that of the AO restored." 36. The ld. CIT-DR submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing fluctuation loss on sale proceeds of EEFC account, while such a notional loss being continge....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....td. (supra), their Lordships, after considering the CBDT Circular No. 3/2010 (supra) and referring to the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Woodward Governor India (P) Ltd., 312 ITR 254 (SC), held thus:- "4. On further appeal, the impugned order of the Tribunal has allowed the respondent assessee's appeal holding that the claim of expenditure of Rs. 62.62 lakhs is permissible under Section 37 of the Act. The impugned order of the Tribunal placed reliance upon the decision of the Apex Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Woodward Governor India (P) Ltd. 312 ITR 254 to hold that where the loss suffered by an assessee due to fluctuation of foreign exchange as on the date of balancesheet in respect of purchase and sales of goods (payment have to be made / received) is allowable as expenditure under Section 37(1) of the Act. 5. The grievance of the Revenue before us is that Instruction No. 3 of 2010 dated 31st March, 2010 issued by the CBDT in respect of loss on account of foreign exchange derivatives is subsequent to the Apex Court's decision in Woodward Governor India (P) Ltd. (supra) and was not considered by the Tribunal. This....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... No. 3 of 2010 dated 23.03.2010. 7.1. During appellate proceedings, the AR of the appellant made following written submissions: "The appellant company maintained EEFC Accounts each one of which is maintained with State Bank of India, Vasco and Syndicate Bank, Margao. These accounts are maintained in US Dollar. The company is allowed to make direct remittances from those accounts for the purpose of business. Likewise the proceeds received in foreign currencies out of our export activities are allowed to be credited to this account. As per the Accounting Standard - 11(AS-11), which has to be mandatorily followed by the appellant company, requires to reinstate the closing balance available in the said accounts into Indian Rupees by applying the exchange rate of 31st March of the relevant financial year. As per the said standard the gain or loss as the case may be on account of this reinstatement has to be either credited to Profit and Loss Account (if gain) or has to be charged off to Profit and Loss Account (if loss). Accordingly the company had charged off sum of Rs. 8,65,74,413/- (17,879,317 + 68,695,096) as exchange loss for the year ended 31.03.2010 relevant to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and states that business income inter alia has to be computed in accordance with cash or mercantile system of accounting. Sub-section (2) thereof authorizes the Central Government to notify accounting standards to be followed for determination of business income. Section 211 of the Companies Act also similarly casts a duty on a company to give a true and fair view of the profit and loss of the company for the financial year. It also requires the company to adhere the accounting standards for preparation of profit in the Profit & Loss Account and the Balance Sheet. A conjoint reading of section 145 of the Act and section 211 of the Companies Act leaves no room for doubt that the Appellant is obliged to follow the accounting standards prescribed to determine business income under the head "business or profession". I find that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Woodward Governor India (P) Ltd. (312 ITR 254) has observed that AS-11 is mandatory in nature. In the light of observations made in Woodward Governor India (P) Ltd. (supra), I am of the view that loss arising on foreign exchange fluctuation loss has been rightly accounted for as a revenue expense in the Profit & Loss ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... it is clear that the claim of foreign exchange fluctuation loss in revenue account by the assessee in accordance with the generally accepted accounting practices and mandatory accounting standards notified by the ICAI cannot be alleged or held as faulty or baseless. The ld.CIT(A) has also considered the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Woodward Governor (India) Pvt. Ltd. (supra) wherein it was observed that the AS-11 is mandatory in nature and the loss arising out of foreign exchange fluctuation has to be accounted for as revenue expenses in the Profit & Loss Account in accordance with AS-11. 41. We may also point out that the ld.CIT-DR could not dislodge the findings arrived at by the ld.CIT(A) in para 7.2 to 7.5 of the first appellate order wherein it was clearly found that the money currency fluctuation loss was emanated from foreign exchange currency EEFC account in which the sale proceeds of iron ore were deposited by the appellant and the claim of exchange fluctuation loss as revenue account is also based on the argument that the said action was taken to save interest cost and consequently to augment the profitability or to reduce revenue loss of the ....