TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 1147
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Ahmedabad (For short "the Tribunal") in ITA No.242/AHD/2020 and ITA No.283/AHD/2022 for Assessment Year 2015-2016 and Assessment Year 2016-2017 respectively with following proposed substantial question of law: "For AY 2015-2016: i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT has erred in deleting the disallowance of marked to market loss of Rs. 51,29,56,469/- in respect of currency derivative contracts without considering that M to M loss is a notional loss and contingent in nature? For AY 2016-2017: (i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT has erred in deleting the disallowance of marked to market loss of Rs. Rs. 25,45,18,097/- i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t, we note that identical issue came up before this tribunal in case of sister concern of the assessee namely Adani Petronet (Dahej) Port Pvt. Ltd for A.Y. 2011-12 in ITA No. 1470/AHD/2018 where the issue has been decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The relevant finding of the bench is extracted as under:.... xxx 9.1 Before us, no material has been placed on record by the Revenue to demonstrate that the decision of Tribunal as discussed above has been set aside / stayed or overruled by the Higher Judicial Authorities. Before us, Revenue has not placed any material on record to point out any distinguishing feature in the facts & circumstances of the case of the assessee and fact & circumstances in case of sister ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tional loss on outstanding forex derivatives contracts as on 31.03.2009? 2. Whether the Tribunal erred in law and on facts in granting the deduction u/s. 80IB of the Act of Rs. 2,18,97,496/- on interest income received from debtors? 3. Whether the Tribunal erred in law and on facts in granting of tax credit of Rs. 1,62,26,344/- & Rs. 1,05,43,697/- in respect of royalty income not claimed in original return of income nor claimed in revised return of income?" 4. These questions are however not considered for the following reasons: The decision of the Tribunal with respect to question No.1 is in conformity with the decision of Supreme Court in case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Woodward Government India P. Ltd reported in (2009....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e of notional loss on account of foreign exchange fluctuation loss amounting to Rs.1,26,42,63,740/ claimed on account of Mark to Market basis ? B. Whether the Appellate Tribunal has erred in law and on facts in deleting upward adjustment of Rs.14,91,87,270/ made on account interest charged on the loans granted to the Associated Enterprises, at discounted rate to the prevailing Market rate ? C. Whether the Appellate Tribunal has erred in law and on facts in allowing the fresh claim of the assessee in respect of Revenue expenditures of Rs.5.06 Crores for issue of debenture of LIC of India when such claim was never made by Assessee in its return of income in contradiction to the Apex Court decision in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd 157 T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... Under the circumstances, present appeal qua proposed question nos. 2(C) and 2 (E) is hereby dismissed. 4.0. Present Tax Appeal is admitted for consideration of following substantial question of law : B. Whether the Appellate Tribunal has erred in law and on facts in deleting upward adjustment of Rs.14,91,87,270/ made on account interest charged on the loans granted to the Associated Enterprises, at discounted rate to the prevailing Market rate ? D. Whether the Appellate Tribunal has erred in law and on facts in holding that disallowance under Section 14 A cannot be added to book profit while working out tax liability under the provisions of MAT as the said section has no applicability beyond chapter IV, while computing the book p....