Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX I Versus GIRISHKUMAR RAMANLAL CHOKSHI AND BROTHERS

2015 (4) TMI 828 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT

Addition on account of hedging loss treated as speculation loss - ITAT deleted part addition accepting additional evidence - Held that:- As before the learned CIT(A) the assessee filed the monthly purchase and sale quantity of gold on actual basis and purchase and sale quantity of gold in MCX in Excel sheet, which was carved out from the bills issued by MCX during the year and which were already before the Assessing Officer and, therefore, it cannot be said that as such the learned CIT(A) admitt .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Assessing Officer on account of hedging loss treating it as speculation loss to ₹ 1,01,417/- instead of ₹ 1,06,65,670/-. No substantial question of law arises. - Decided against revenue. - TAX APPEAL NO. 160 of 2015 - Dated:- 25-3-2015 - MR. M.R. SHAH AND MR. S.H.VORA, JJ. FOR THE APPELLANT : MRS MAUNA M BHATT, ADVOCATE FOR THE OPPONENT : MR TEJ SHAH, ADVOCATE JUDGMENT (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH) (1.0) Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and orde .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

eferred the present Tax Appeal with the following proposed substantial questions of law; (A) Whether the Appellate Tribunal has substantially erred in restricting the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of hedging loss treated as speculation loss to ₹ 1,01,417/- instead of ₹ 1,06,65,670/-? (B) Whether the Appellate Tribunal has substantially erred in admitting additional evidence furnished before the CIT(A) without giving reasonable opportunity to the Assessing Officer .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and statutory notice under Section 143(3) of the Act was issued. On verification of the trading account, it was found that the assessee had debited the amount of ₹ 1,06,65,670/- as MCX trading difference. The Assessing Officer considered the said transaction as speculative in nature. A show cause notice was issued to the assessee asking it to show cause as to why the MCX loss should not be treated as speculation loss. It was the case on behal .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

he meaning of Section 43(5) of the Act and consequently the assessed the income of the assessee at ₹ 1,18,82,830/-. (2.1) Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred appeal before the learned CIT(A) and considered the material / materials, which were already produced before the Assessing Officer and considered the monthly purchase and sale quantity of gold on actual basis and purchase and sale quantity of gold in MCX, .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

addition made by the Assessing Officer on the account of hedging loss treating it as speculation loss to ₹ 1,01,417/- instead of ₹ 1,06,65,670/- admitting the additional evidence furnished before him without giving an opportunity to the Assessing Officer in violation of Rule 46(A)(3) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. By the impugned judgment and order the learned ITAT has dismissed the said appeal by observing that as such all the materials, which came to be considered by the learned CI .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

rder passed by the learned CIT(A) restricting the addition made by the Assessing Officer on the ground of hedging loss treating it as speculation loss at ₹ 1,01,417/- instead of ₹ 1,06,65,670/-. (2.3) Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned ITAT, the revenue has preferred the present Tax Appeal with the aforesaid proposed questions of law. (3.0) Shri Manish Bhatt, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the revenue has vehemently s .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version