TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 1225X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... return of income, the corresponding tax credit on the same income has to be given. Accordingly, we are of the opinion that there is no need of apprehension for the assessee that the Assessing Officer will misinterpret the order of the Tribunal. Therefore, we do not find any merit in the argument of the ld. AR. Accordingly, the miscellaneous petition is dismissed. Addition towards loss on foreign exchange derivatives transaction - Held that:- Tribunal while holding that the loss arising out of hedging contracts entered into by the assessee in the course of business has to be allowed as business loss and not to be considered as speculation loss. While holding so, the Tribunal has placed reliance on various decisions of Co-ordinate Bench i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xtent of tax payable in India on net income of ₹ 516,93,732/- i.e difference between interest earned from M/s AHPL and interest paid on borrowings made for advancing the loans to M/s AHPL. The Tribunal while adjudicating the grounds, placed reliance on the order of the Tribunal in the case of Bank of Baroda vs CIT in I.T.A.No.2927/Mds/2011 dated 25.7.2014 wherein the Tribunal has given a direction that the income of the branches of the assessee shall also taxable in India i.e it wold be included in the return of income filed by the assessee in India and whatever taxes have been paid by the branches in the other contracting states i.e the source country, credit of such taxes shall be given. Thereafter, the Tribunal in this case remitt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ound, the Tribunal remitted the issue back to the file of the Assessing Officer to decide afresh in the light of the order of the Coordinate Bench in the case of DCIT vs Asvini Fisheries P. Ltd. in I.T.A.No.2246/Mds/2014 dated 18.12.2015. According to the ld. AR, all the transactions entered into by the assessee are with a view to hedge against losses arising from foreign exchange fluctuations in the course of business transactions. As such, reliance placed by the Tribunal in the case of Araska Diamond P. Ltd vs ACIT, 152 ITD 203, has no application. Accordingly, the ld. AR submitted that in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Woodward Governor India Ltd, 312 ITR 254, the loss has crystallized as on the last day of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /s 35D in respect of total expenditure incurred towards share issue. The Tribunal while disposing of this ground, followed its order for assessment year 2006-07 in I.T.A.No. 1382/Mds/2010 dated 15.7.2011 instead of the latest order of the Tribunal for the assessment year 2007-08 in I.T.A.No. 90/Mds/2012 dated 26.6.2015. According to the ld. DR, the order of the Tribunal for the assessment year 2007-08 is squarely applicable to the issue in dispute for the assessment year 2008-09. As the Tribunal has given a categorical finding in para 11 while confirming the CIT(A) s order that sale of undertaking subsequently to a different company would not blot out the factum of completion of extension of the industrial undertaking of the appellant. Acco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... also gone through the decisions relied on by the AO and AR. Similar issue had come up for consideration in appellant's own case for A.Y. 2006-07. After considering the facts and rival submissions, it was held in ITA No.573/08 09/A.1I1 dated 23.06.2010 for A.Y. 2006- 07 that the expenditure on issue of shares is not deductible because it is directly related to the expansion of the capital base of the company. The disallowance of the AO was sustained. However, since the appellant is engage in the business of hiring rigs as well as the business of drilling and other oil field services, hydrocarbon exploration and production, it was held that these activities would fall within the ambit of mining under clause (aa) (iv) of sub-section (7 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ploration Ltd. Accordingly, the appellant got the rig moving from Texas Shipyard towards India. The fact that it was sold subsequently to a different company would not blot out the factum of completion of extension of the industrial undertaking of the appellant. Hence, I am of the considered opinion that the appellant is eligible for deduction u/s 35D in respect of the total expenditure incurred towards share issue. In the result, the ground to allow the entire issue is dismissed. However, the appellant is entitled to claim deduction u/s 35D. The ground is partly allowed. 12. After hearing both the parties and going through the said paragraph of the CIT(A) s order and following the order of the Tribunal in assessee s own case (supr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
