9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (6) TMI 1020X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the Revenue is directed against the order passed by CIT(A)-27, Mumbai and it pertains to A.Y. 2009-10. 2. The only ground urged before us reads as under: - "1. Whether on the facts and circumstances and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that 'Mark-to-Market' loss of Rs. 7,05,11,295/- arising on re-valuation of forward contract agreements on the closing date of accounting year is no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ated in foreign currency is being recognised as gain or loss in the Profit & Loss Account. In the ordinary course of business assessee had revalued the outstanding forward contract as on 31.03.2009 and debited a loss of `7.05 crores, which was disallowed by the AO. The learned CIT(A) followed the decision of the ITAT Special Bench, Mumbai in the case of DCIT vs. Bank of Bahrain and Kuwait (ITA Nos ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e decision of the ITAT Special Bench, Mumbai as well as the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, there is no infirmity in the order passed by the CIT(A). He also relied upon the latest order of the ITAT "D" Bench, Mumbai in the case of M/s. Raj Gems (order dated 19.05.2015 wherein both of us are party) to submit that the view taken by the CIT(A) is consistent with the view taken in the afore ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
