|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 281 to 300 of 1320 Records
-
2020 (9) TMI 1041
Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - Addition as Share application money since 31.03.2009, treated as cessation of trading liabilities u/s 41(1) - HELD THAT:- Hon’ble Supreme court, in the case of ACIT vs Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd.[2007 (5) TMI 197 - SUPREME COURT] had clearly held that reasons to believe does not mean that the reasons for reopening should have been factually ascertained by legal evidence or conclusion before the reopening of an assessment.
As in the case of Raymond woolen Mills Ltd [1997 (12) TMI 12 - SUPREME COURT] had held that for determining, whether initiation of reopening proceedings was valid, it has only to be seen, whether there was prima-facie some material on the basis of which, the department would reopen the case. It further held that the sufficiency or correctness of the material is not a thing to be considered at the stage of issue of notice. There is no merit in arguments taken by the Ld. Counsel for the assesee challenging reopening of assessment.
Additions made towards cessation of trading liability u/s 41(1) - Once the liability has been paid back during AY 2009-10, then the same cannot be considered as continued in the books of accounts as on 31/03/2010, in order to invoke provisions of section 41(1) on the basis of subsequent enquiries conducted during the course of assessment proceedings. In fact, the evidences filed before the authorities have clearly established the fact that the assessee has paid said liability in AY 2009-10. Therefore, we are of the considered view that liability, if at all is ceased to exist, then said liability had been ceased to exist in the FY 2008-09 relevant to AY 2009-10, but not for the AY 2010-11.
AO, as well as the Ld.CIT(A) were erred in, coming to the conclusion that the liability is ceased to exist during AY 2010-11.
None of the conditions prescribed therein u/s 41(1) were fulfilled, in order to bring said liability within the ambit of provisions of section 41(1) because neither, the liability is ceased to exist during the impugned assessment year, nor the Ld. AO proved that it is a non-genuine trading liability. On the other hand, the assessee has filed necessary evidences to prove that the liability was existed in the books of accounts up to 31/03/2009 and on 31/03/2009 said liability has been fully paid back by converting, the same into share application money with the consent of creditors.
AO, as well as the Ld.CIT (A) was completely erred in making additions towards cessation or remission of liability u/s 41(1) of the Act, towards share application money - Decided partly in favour of assessee.
-
2020 (9) TMI 1040
Addition u/s 68 - CIT(A) upheld the order of the AO observing that the Assessee failed to establish the credit worthiness of his son in law and mere furnishing of confirmation letters and copy of gift deed was not sufficient to discharge the onus that lies on the Assessee - HELD THAT:- In the light of the order of assessment for AY: 2012-13 passed in the case of the Assessee accepting the genuineness of the loan given by the Assessee’s son-in-law to the Assessee, the source, capacity and genuineness of the gift of the very same sum in the AY: 2015-16 stands established.
The only reason assigned by the revenue authorities for rejecting the plea of the Assessee in AY: 2015-16 is that the credit worthiness and source of income of Assessee’s son-in-law has not been established. The gift by the Assessee’s son-in-law has never been disputed nor disbelieved. Since the AO has accepted the credit worthiness of the Assessee’s son-in-law in Assessee’s assessment for AY: 201-13, we are of the view that the sum in question which was added as unexplained u/s 68 of the Act for AY: 2015-16 has to be deleted - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2020 (9) TMI 1039
Import of Vehicle or not - whether bringing of a vehicle by the petitioner under Ext.P1 can be termed as import of a vehicle and even if it cannot be strictly termed as import, is the petitioner eligible to import the said vehicle paying customs duty and availing depreciation benefits in respect of the vehicle? - HELD THAT:- The Customs Act provides for an appellate mechanism to decide such issues. The petitioner has not availed the same. Therefore, it is only just and proper that the petitioner is relegated to appellate remedy available under the Customs Act at the first instance.
The writ petition is disposed of permitting the petitioner to prefer an appeal against Ext.P4 before the Commissioner (Appeals) under Section 128 of the Customs Act, within a period of two weeks, along with a petition to condone the delay - Petition disposed off.
-
2020 (9) TMI 1038
Maintainability of Joint Application - Sanction of Scheme of Amalgamation - Sections 230 to 232 of the Companies Act, 2013 - HELD THAT:- As per clause 8 of the Scheme, all legal proceedings of whatsoever nature by or against Transferor Companies pending and/or arising at the Appointed Date and relating to Transferor Companies or its properties, assets, debts, liabilities, duties and obligations, shall be continued and/or enforced until the Effective Date as desired by the Transferee Company and as and from the Effective Date shall be continued and enforced by or against the Transferee Company in the same manner and to the same extent as would or might have been continued and enforced by or against Transferor Companies. On and from the Effective Date, the Transferee Company may, if required, initiate any legal proceedings in its name in relation to Transferor Companies in the same manner and to the same extent as would or might have been initiated by Transferor Companies.
Directions are issued with respect to calling, convening and holding of meetings of the Shareholders, Secured Creditors and Unsecured Creditors or dispensing with the same as well as issue of notices including by way of paper publication - Application disposed off.
-
2020 (9) TMI 1037
Appointment of Interim Administrator or appoint an official from the Ministry of Corporate Affairs to take over the management of the 1st Respondent Company - HELD THAT:- No doubt that the Company Petition was filed before National Company Law Tribunal, Chennai Bench on 08.02.2019, but it was not numbered or presented before the Bench. It was numbered only on 27.08.2019 in Registry of NCLT, Kochi Bench and it was put up for first time on 03.09.2019 for presentation - I have heard both the parties and meticulously perused all the case records submitted before me. Considering the reliefs sought in the main Company Petition and allegations made against Respondents Nos. 1 & 3, particularly relating to the disqualification of applicant and Respondent No.3, I, by exercising the inherent power of the Tribunal under Rule 11 of the National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016 and for meeting the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of this Tribunal, decided to
Both the parties are directed to suggest names of qualified persons, who may be appointed as an Interim Administrator in the matter to look after the management and affairs of the Respondent No.1 Company - Application allowed.
-
2020 (9) TMI 1036
Maintainability of application - CIRP process - It is not the case of the Writ Petitioners that there is any lack of jurisdiction on the part of NCLT in entertaining the Company Petition and it has merely contended that NCLT erred in passing the impugned order - HELD THAT:- It is the contention of the petitioners herein that respondent Nos.4 and 5 had manipulated and falsified the accounts and misappropriated the funds apart from committing fraud. Therefore, these are the aspects which can certainly be considered by NCLAT, if appeals were preferred by the petitioners under Section 61 of the Code to it.
In this view of the matter, we are not inclined to entertain the Writ Petition since the petitioners have an effective alternative remedy before the NCLAT under Section 61 of the Code - Granting liberty to the petitioner to avail the said remedy of appeal under Section 61 of the Code, this Writ Petition is dismissed - Petition dismissed.
-
2020 (9) TMI 1035
Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - Operational debt or not - time limitation - Section 8 of the IBC, 2016.
Whether the debt mentioned in the Demand Notice is an operational debt and whether there is default in its payment? - HELD THAT:- A conjoint reading of Sections 8 and 9 of the IBC makes it incumbent on the operational creditor to show the amount of debt in default and the date of default clearly and should also provide credible proof about the purchase and supply of goods and services as claimed. Hence the operational creditor’s claim of debt of ₹ 50,32,028/- and default in payment of the cost relating to supply and installation and managed professional services is not established as required in Sections 8 and 9 of the IBC - The Corporate Debtor, in his reply dated 03.12.2018 to the Demand Notice, has accepted placing purchase order of 30 nos. GPS vehicle trackers and receiving the supply. Since the Corporate Debtor has accepted the supply pending payment relating to these 30 vehicle trackers; hence it is an admitted Operational Debt.
Whether the application filed under Section 8 of the IBC, 2016 for the relevant operational debt is within limitation? - HELD THAT:- It is for the Resolution Professional and the Committee of Creditors to consider all these claims received in the process of CIRP. We also hope that the stakeholders as well as the IRP and COC shall keep in mind that the IBC is a beneficial legislation which is not meant to put going concerns/entities in resolution for small acts of commission or omission which can be rectified - The Corporate Debtor has raised the issue of not been accorded an opportunity to advance oral arguments by the Ld. Adjudicating Authority on the date of final hearing i.e. 06.12.2019. It is seen by us that the Ld. Adjudicating Authority has, in the interest of adhering to timelines given in IBC, considered the oral arguments made by the Ld. Counsel of the Corporate Debtor made on the previous date of hearing. He has decided to close the arguments on 06.12.2019 and pass the final judgment in the case after taking into account all the submissions, which include written and oral submissions, and hence it cannot be said that the Corporate Debtor was denied reasonable opportunity to be heard.
There are no infirmity in the order of the Learned Adjudicating Authority. The interim stay order relating to non-constitution of the Committee of Creditors passed by this Tribunal on 03.02.2020 is hereby vacated and the Interim Resolution Professional shall take further action with regard to the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process.
-
2020 (9) TMI 1034
Payment ot dissenting Financial Creditors - compliance of the provisions of Section 30(2)(b)(ii) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 r/w Regulation 38(ii)(b) of the CIRP Regulations - HELD THAT:- The amended Section 30(2)(b)(ii) r/w amended Regulation 38 stipulates payments in priority to the dissenting Financial Creditors. The Applicant submits that Explanation 2 to Section 30(2) in terms stipulates that these amendments would apply even to the existing proceedings pertaining to the approval of the resolution plan. Admittedly, the resolution plan in relation to the Corporate Debtor was not approved as on the date of t amendment in terms of Section 31 of the Code.
The Applicant is constrained to prefer the present application seeking appropriate directions against the Respondents - This Adjudicating Authority may be pleased to declare and order the Resolution Plan in relation to B.P. Food Products Private Limited, the Corporate Debtor, to the extent it does not provide payment of dues of dissenting Financial Creditor to be paid in priority, is liable to be rejected as it is not in conformity with Section 6 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Amendment) Act, 2019 r/w Section 30(2) of the Code r/w Regulation 38 of CIRP Regulations, in the interest of justice and equity.
-
2020 (9) TMI 1033
Liquidation of Corporate Debtor - section 33(1), 33(2) and 34(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - HELD THAT:- From the records, it is found that no viable and feasible Resolution Plan has been received so far and Corporate Debtor has no running business. Therefore, the CoC has resolved for liquidation of the Corporate Debtor vide its 3rd meeting dated 12.12.2019. It is also to be noted that this Adjudicating Authority has no jurisdiction to interfere in the commercial wisdom of the CoC.
The moratorium declared under Section 14 of the IB Code shall cease to have effect from the date of the order of liquidation - Liquidator is further directed to issue public announcement stating that the Corporate Debtor is in liquidation - application allowed.
-
2020 (9) TMI 1032
Approval of Resolution Plan - Section 30 of IBC - HELD THAT:- The arguments/opinion of the Learned counsel of the RP at the Bench's questions about irregularities observed in the Compliance Certificate should not matter much as long as the Members of the Bench are honest and sincere to the pie. Moreover, the Learned Lawyer has not sought for change of Bench in this matter. It may not be proper, in my opinion, to fall prey to the improper view/opinion/arguments of the Learned lawyer. Hence, this Adjudicating Authority may take a lenient view at the expression of the learned lawyer on the clarifications sought by this Adjudicating Authority in the interest of Justice and achievement of the objectives of the IBC.
-
2020 (9) TMI 1031
Extension of the usance period of the Letter of Credit Facility sanctioned to the writ petitioners from 180 days to 270 days - distinction between the usance period of a Letter of Credit and the period of a Trade Credit - HELD THAT:- The argument that the 2018 Regulations brought about a change in policy regarding the usance period for credit does not hold water, since the said Regulations and the Master Direction on External Commercial Borrowings and Trade Credits dated July 1, 2015, updated up to October 6, 2015, relate to loans extended by overseas banks. The germane consideration in the present case is, rather, the Master Direction – Import of Goods and Services dated January 1, 2016 (updated lastly on April 1, 2019).
Trade Credit Policy – Revised Framework formulated by the RBI on March 13, 2019 does not alter the position as far as the usance period available to the petitioners was concerned.
As correctly argued by the respondents, a Court order cannot impose its own view to substitute the terms of the original contract between the parties and the petitioners cannot insist upon the discretion of the bank to extend the usance period of credit to be exercised in the petitioners’ favour as a matter of right.
as correctly argued by the respondents, a Court order cannot impose its own view to substitute the terms of the original contract between the parties and the petitioners cannot insist upon the discretion of the bank to extend the usance period of credit to be exercised in the petitioners’ favour as a matter of right.
The petitioners shall repay the loan amount pertaining to the credit facilities obtained from the State Bank of India (represented by the respondents) in respect of the loan-in-question within 30 days from date along with interest at the rate of 6 percent per annum from the date of expiry of the credit period of 180 days post-shipment till repayment. Failure to repay the said cumulative amount (principal with interest) within 30 days from date would entail imposition of interest at the rate of 18 percent per annum which the petitioners shall pay.
-
2020 (9) TMI 1030
Provisional attachment order - assets in respect of which the said attachment order has been passed are certain fixed deposits - said fixed deposits are currently lying with the HDFC Bank - HELD THAT:- In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case where the amount, if frozen or attached, would continue to remain under the custody of the ED, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the said amount of ₹ 42,85,32,698.63/- from the provisionally attached bank account to be transferred to the account of the NHB by the HDFC Bank.
Remaining amounts provisional attachment order shall continue and the Petitioner would be free to agitate its pleas before the Adjudicating Authority under the PMLA. Payment to the NHB shall be a pro-tem measure in the peculiar facts and shall abide by the final orders of the Adjudicating Authority. If the Adjudicating Authority finally determines that the said amount ought to be paid back to the ED, the NHB shall abide by the said order and shall re-deposit the said amount within a period of six weeks after the passing of the order by the Adjudicating Authority, subject to any orders passed by a superior court/tribunal. If refund is ordered by the adjudicating authority, no interest shall be payable by the NHB. Only the principal amount which is being transferred from the HDFC Bank to the NHB would be liable to be put back into the ED’s account.
Amount received from the HDFC Bank shall be credited by the NHB in the account of the Petitioner and if the Adjudicating Authority passes an order for re-deposit of the amount, the same shall be debited from the Petitioner’s account.
-
2020 (9) TMI 1029
Bail Application - Dishonor of Cheque - case of applicant is that applicant is the only person who is indulge in fraudulent activities and also cheated the informant, but could not explain the proceeding initiated against the informant under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act which is also pertaining to receiving money for providing job - HELD THAT:- Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also perusing the material on record, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, let the applicant -Ashish Sharma, involved in case crime No. 366 of 2019, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 406, 504 and 506 IPC, police station -Prem Nagar, District -Jhansi be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of court concerned. It is further provided that this bail order available on the official website of the High Court will be taken to be the authentic one and certified copy shall be submitted before that court concerned as soon as it is issued.
Bail allowed subject to conditions imposed.
-
2020 (9) TMI 1028
Dishonor of Cheque - Acquittal of accused - Offence u/s 138 - Presumption u/s 139 - Advance given for purchase of Tractor - delivery of tractor and subsequent issue of cheques are in dispute - HELD THAT:- It is not in dispute that the accused was intending to purchase a Tractor, as such, he approached the complainant in that regard. It is also not in dispute that in connection with purchase of a Tractor, the accused paid in total a sum of ₹ 20,000/- to complainant as an advance amount towards the purchase value of the Tractor. In that connection, the accused himself has made a suggestion to PW-1 in his cross-examination, which suggestion has been admitted as true by PW-1/complainant. Therefore, it is established that the accused had approached the complainant for purchasing a Tractor from him and in that regard, had paid an advance amount - primarily when the issuance of a cheque is established, then, a presumption arises in favour of the drawer of the instrument or holder in due course of the instrument about there being in existence a legally enforceable debt. However, the said presumption is rebuttable. In the instant case, the said aspect has to be seen with two dimensions. First, whether such a presumption has been appropriately rebutted by the accused. Second, whether the complainant was the payee of the instrument or its holder in due course.
The presumption about the existence of a legally enforceable debt stands in favour of the complainant. However, the said presumption is rebuttable. In order to rebut the said presumption, though it is not necessary that the accused has to necessarily enter the witness box and lead the evidence, it is suffice if he could able to rebut the presumption even in the cross-examination of the complainant (PW-1) or through other cogent evidence. In the instant case, admittedly, the accused has not entered the witness box by himself nor examined any witnesses from his side. He has not even produced any documents and got them marked as exhibits from his side. However, he has subjected the complainant to a detailed cross-examination.
In the instant case, as being repeatedly observed, the complainant himself has categorically stated that the complaint was filed in his personal capacity. As such, without looking into any other aspect, it can be said that the cheque was issued to a firm which has not been made over to or endorsed to anyone including the present complainant and the present complaint is instituted by the complainant in his personal capacity. As such, the very complaint itself is not maintainable.
The Trial Court having observed these aspects, though with other reasons, since has arrived at a correct conclusion of acquitting the accused for the alleged offence, there are no reason to set aside the said judgment of acquittal and to interfere in the judgment under appeal - appeal dismissed.
-
2020 (9) TMI 1027
Input Tax Credit - mismatch in the Input Tax Credit claimed in GSTR-3B and that appearing in GSTR-2A during the period April, 2018 - March, 2019 - It is the petitioner’s case that the conditions mentioned in Rule 86A of the CGST Rules, 2017 are not satisfied in the present case - HELD THAT:- The present writ petition is directed to be treated as a representation to respondent no.1, who is directed to decide the same by way of a reasoned order within four weeks, in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and/or its authorized representative.
The present writ petition and application stand disposed of.
-
2020 (9) TMI 1026
Maintainability of appeal - requirement of pre-deposit - he petitioner is ready and willing to deposit an additional 20% of the remaining amount of tax in dispute in compliance of the requirements under Section 112 (8) of the Act - HELD THAT:- The petitioner shall deposit 20% of the remaining amount of tax in dispute in accordance with Section 112 (8) of the Act within three weeks from today and in which event, the recovery proceedings for the balance amount shall remain stayed till disposal of the instant petition.
List for hearing in the second week of February, 2020 before the appropriate Court.
-
2020 (9) TMI 1025
Grant of Bail - power to re-arrest if the amount of tax evaded goes up during the investigation - Accused is already on bail in the same case - availment of ineligible ITC to the tune of ₹ 24 Crore - pre-trial detention - custodial interrogation - HELD THAT:- It is now well settled by a catena of decisions of the Supreme Court that the power to grant bail is not to be exercised as if the punishment before trial is being imposed. The only material considerations in such a situation are whether the accused would be readily available for his trial and whether he is likely to abuse the discretion granted in his favour by tampering with evidences. If there is no prima facie case there s no question of considering other circumstances. But even where a prima facie case is established, the approach of the court in the matter of bail is not that the accused should be detained by way of punishment but whether the presence of the accused would be readily available for trial or that he is likely to abuse the discretion granted in his favour by tampering with evident.
The above decision makes it abundantly clear that even if any new case is made out after release of the accused on bail ipsofacto, the Court or the police/department will not get a right to take the accused to the custody unless the bail originally granted is cancelled for any substantial reasons. There must overwhelming circumstances are necessary for cancellation of bail. Therefore it is clear that the right of a person once he has been granted by the competent authority shall be safeguarded with utmost respect to the said order passed by the competent court.
In the criminal jurisprudence prevailing in all common law countries, every person is presumed to be innocent until proved to the contrary. The consequence that logically follows is that an accused ought not to be detained or imprisoned, that the personal liberty even of an accused should not be interfered with, until he is convicted by due process of law. Several offences are notified as being bailable and even in the remainder, that is non-bailable offences, the accused can be enlarged on bail by orders of the Court. Bail is the rule; Jail is the exception - The presumption of the innocence of an accused can easily be defeated if the investigation is not constrained by time, is open-ended and protracted. It is for this reason that the legislature has wisely provided that the investigation of an accused should reach its culmination by the filing of a Chargesheet within sixty days, or ninety days where the investigation relates to an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term of not less than ten years.
No doubt the department has moved an application for examination of accused in terms of section 70 of CGST Act which was allowed. However, the said examination cannot be termed as custodial interrogation as claimed in the rep to the bail application. Section 70 CGST Act empowers the proper officer to sum any personwhose attendance he considers necessary either to give evidence or to produce document or any other thing in any inquiry in the same mariner, as provided in the case of a civil court under the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and such inquiry shall be deemed to be a "judicial proceedings" within the meaning of section 193 and section 228 of the Indian Penal Code. The said examination is never meant to be a custodial interrogation and therefore such averments are rejected.
Accused Parag Garg is entitled to bail as not only he was arrested in pursuance to a ongoing further investigation conducted by DGGI but also the fact that accused has prima facie shown that he has secured around 40% of the alleged tax evasion amount. The adjudication proceedings are yet to commence by the department as their investigation is not concluded and the complaint is not likely to be filed very soon.
Bail application allowed subject to certain conditions.
-
2020 (9) TMI 1024
Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - No notice issued u/s 148 - alternate remedy - as per revenue that the notice was dispatched to the appellant – writ petitioner from Teynampet Post Office through speed post and also produced the proof before the learned Single Judge - HELD THAT:- Learned Single Judge was fully justified in dismissing the said writ petition, as the appellant has got an effective alternate remedy by way of an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) concerned. The Income Tax Act, 1961, being a physical Statute, has provided for hierarchy of remedies under that and there is no justification for the assessee to bypass such an appellate remedy.
The point canvassed before us as well as before the learned Single Judge is not a pure question of law, but a pure question of fact with the limits of law involved in it. Therefore, if the facts are in dispute, it is but appropriate for the appellant – assessee to avail the alternate remedy provided under the Act, as the Appellate Authority is entitled to re-appreciate the facts, call for records and then take a decision.
Writ appeal is dismissed, the order dated 07.11.2019 passed in the said writ petition is confirmed and the appellant is directed to file the appeal before the concerned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
-
2020 (9) TMI 1023
Withholding of the refund u/s 241A - HELD THAT:- Having heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and in view of the guidelines in Mapel Logistics [2019 (11) TMI 340 - DELHI HIGH COURT] as well as, the directions contained in the said order dated 03.03.2020 rendered by the Coordinate Bench [2020 (3) TMI 1243 - DELHI HIGH COURT] we allow the present petition and remit the matter back to the Assessing Officer to pass a fresh speaking order, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and further permitting them to place on record the additional affidavit dated 01.06.2020, filed before this Court, in accordance with law, within a period of six weeks from today.
-
2020 (9) TMI 1022
Disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D - Whether no exempt income received by assessee? - non recording of satisfaction - HELD THAT:- To apply the provisions of Section 14A AO should have recorded a finding as to how Sub-Section (1) of Section 14A would stand attracted. In the absence of any such finding, the disallowance made was not justifiable.
AO straightaway proceeded to the second limb of Section 14(2) which is impermissible. The Tribunal rightly took note of the decision in the case of Redington India Ltd. [2017 (1) TMI 318 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] wherein it was held that the provisions of Section 14A r.w.r 8D cannot be made applicable in vacuum i.e in the absence of exempt income. Therefore, we find that the Tribunal was right in deciding the issue against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee.
Disallowance of foreign exchange fluctuation loss - HELD THAT:- As considered the reasons assigned by the Tribunal in the assessee's own case for the earlier assessment year wherein the Tribunal rightly took note of the earliest decision on the said point in the case of Soorajmull Nagarmull [1980 (9) TMI 69 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] and pointed out that under Section 43(5) of the Act, 'speculative transaction' has been defined to mean a transaction, in which, a contract for the purchase or sale of commodity is settled otherwise than by the actual delivery or transfer of such commodity.
Assessee herein was not a dealer in foreign exchange, but was an exporter of cotton. Therefore, the Tribunal rightly took note of the transaction done by the assessee though, in order to hedge against the losses, the assessee booked foreign exchange in the forward market with the bank. Export contracts entered into by the assessee for the export of cotton in some cases failed and therefore, the assessee was held to be entitled to claim deduction in respect of the said amount as business loss. - Decided in favour of assessee.
............
|
9911796707
