In this income tax appeal, the Revenue challenged the ITAT's decision allowing a marked to market loss as business expenditure. Relying on a final decision of this Court distinguishing the Supreme Court precedent, the court dismissed the appeal.
The appeal is dismissed as no substantial question of law arises.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
itxa-352.15.odt
pmw
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.352 OF 2015
The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) – 4) … Appellant Vs. M/s. Walchandnagar Industries Ltd. … Respondent
Mr. N.C. Mohanty for the Appellant. Ms. Vasanti B. Patel for the Respondent.
CORAM : A.S. OKA & A.K. MENON, JJ.
DATE : 1st NOVEMBER, 2017
P.C.
1 Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant –
Revenue. He states that the challenge in this Appeal to the judgment and order dated 21st August, 2014 made by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is confined to the finding recorded in paragraph 7. His submission is that on facts, the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-Tax, Delhi Vs. Woodward Governor India (P.) Ltd. (2009) 179 Taxman 326 (SC) can be distinguished. However, he fairly pointed out the decision of this Court dated 1st October, 2016 in Income-Tax Appeal No.278 of 2014 (Commissioner of Income-Tax-16, Mumbai Vs. M/s. D. Chetan & Co.).
1 of 2
itxa-352.15.odt
2 The substantial question of law pressed into service is
Question A which read thus :-
“Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT is justified in allowing the marked to market loss of Rs.2,28,01,707/- as business expenditure under Section 37(1) of Income Tax Act, 1961.”
3 We have perused the said decision of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-Tax-16, Mumbai Vs. M/s. D. Chetan & Co. The same question was considered by the Division Bench and answered against the Appellant – Revenue. As of today, the said decision has attained finality.
4 Hence, no substantial question of law arises. There is no merit in the Appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed.
(A.K. MENON, J) (A.S. OKA, J)
2 of 2
1 issue framed by the court
Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was justified in allowing the marked to market loss as business expenditure under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Commissioner of Income-Tax, Delhi Vs. Woodward Governor India (P.) Ltd.Distinguished¶10
(2009) 179 Taxman 326 (SC)
Commissioner of Income-Tax-16, Mumbai Vs. M/s. D. Chetan & Co.Followed¶11
Income-Tax Appeal No.278 of 2014 (Commissioner of Income-Tax-16, Mumbai Vs. M/s. D. Chetan & Co.)
Commissioner of Income-Tax-16, Mumbai Vs. M/s. D. Chetan & Co.Followed¶17
Commissioner of Income-Tax-16, Mumbai Vs. M/s. D. Chetan & Co.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) – 4
M/s. Walchandnagar Industries Ltd.
A.S. OKA
A.K. MENON
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
