ASST CIT 15(1), MUMBAI V. R T STAR SOLITAIRES, MUMBAI

ITA 4408/MUM/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2394 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 1 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-07-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 29-06-2016
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 31-05-2013
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: CAPT PRADEEP S ARYA
• Section: 143(3); 37(1)

Judgement Text

, , D, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES D, MUMBAI , , , BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI ASHWANI TANEJA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.4408/MUM/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 ASST. CIT 15(1) R.NO.104 MATRU MANDIR, 1 ST FLOOR, TARDEO RD, MUMBAI-400007 / VS. R T STAR SOLITAIRES, 712M-A, PRASAD CHAMBERS, TATA RD NO.2 OPERA HOUSE, MUMBAI-400004 (ASS ESSEE ) (REVENUE) P.A. NO. AAGFR8565F REVENUE BY CAPT. PRADEEP S. ARYA ( SR. DR) RESPONDENT BY NONE ! ' # / DATE OF HEARING : 29/06/2016 ' # / DATE OF ORDER: 22/07/2016 / O R D E R PER ASHWANI TANEJA (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER): THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST O RDER OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) -26, MUMBA I, {(IN SHORT CIT(A)}, PASSED AGAINST ASSESSMENT ORDER U/ S 143(3) OF THE ACT, FOR THE A.Y 2009-10 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUN DS: R T STAR SOLITAIRES 2 1.ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE AD DITION OF RS. 45,10,750/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF LOSS ON FOREIGN EXCHANGE FORWARD LOSS AND NOT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE SAID LOSS WAS A NOTIONAL LOSS AND THUS CANNOT BE ALLOWED . '2.ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW, THE LD CIT('A) HAS ERRED IN NOT FOLLOWING T HE RATIO OF THE DECISION OF THE ITAT, 'E' BENCH, MUMBAI IN I TA NO.506/MUM/2013 DATED 03-05-2013 IN THE CASE OF S. VINOD KUMAR DIAMONDS PVT. LTD. 3. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, TO ALTER, TO AMEND AND TO MODIFY ANY OF THE GROUND OF APPEAL,' 2. NONE HAD APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. 3. THE SOLITARY ISSUE RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN THIS C ASE IS IN REGARD TO LOSS OF FOREIGN EXCHANGE CONTRACT WHICH W AS DISALLOWED BY THE AO BUT ALLOWED BY THE LD. CIT(A). 3.1. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION MADE BY LD DR AN D ORDERS PASSED BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 3.2. THE BRIEF FACTS AND BACKGROUND OF THIS CASE ARE TH AT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE W AS IN THE BUSINESS OF IMPORT AND EXPORT OF JEWELLERY. DURING THE YEAR, THE EXPORT TURNOVER WAS RS.127.29 CRORE AND IMPORT VALUE WAS FOR RS. 34.64 CRORE. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE RESE RVE BANK OF INDIA, UNDER ITS FOREIGN EXCHANGE POLICY ALLOW THE EXPORTERS TO TAKE POSITION IN THE FORWARD MARKET SO AS TO COVER AND R T STAR SOLITAIRES 3 WITHSTAND THE RISKS OF FLUCTUATIONS IN THE FOREIGN EXCHANGE RATE. ACCORDINGLY IN VIEW OF ITS BUSINESS NECESSITY , THE ASSESSEE DID SOME TRANSACTIONS IN FOREIGN EXCHANGE MARKET AN D IN THAT IT INCURRED SOME LOSS WHICH WAS CLAIMED BY IT ITS R ETURN OF INCOME. BUT, THE AO DID NOT AGREE WITH THE JUSTIFIC ATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE AND DISALLOWED THE LOSS ON THE GROU ND THAT IT WAS A NOTIONAL LOSS WHICH HAS NOT BEEN REALIZED. AS PER AO, ANY UNREALIZED LOSS ON FORWARD CONTRACT AND MARK TO MARGIN IS NOT TO BE ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION FROM THE INCOME. ACC ORDINGLY, ALLEGED UNREALIZED LOSS ON FORWARD CONTRACT AMOUNTI NG TO RS.45,10,750/- WAS DISALLOWED. 3.3. BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFO RE THE LD. CIT(A) AND MADE EXHAUSTIVE SUBMISSIONS. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SUFFICIENTLY PROVED THAT FORW ARD POSITION WAS MEANT FOR SUFFICIENTLY COVERING FOR EXPORT RECE IVABLES OF THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE AND THERE WAS NOT EVEN A S INGLE TRANSACTION DONE IN THE FOREIGN EXCHANGE WHICH WAS SPECULATIVE IN NATURE. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THA T THERE WAS A GLOBAL MELT DOWN IN THE INTERNATIONAL MARKET AND FEW BANKS ALSO FILED BANKRUPTCY POSITION IN THE USA, AS A RES ULT OF WHICH THERE WAS A GLOBAL CASCADING EFFECT ON THE INDIAN F OREX MARKET, CAUSING HUGE LOSS TO THE INDIAN EXPORTERS DUE TO BA D DEBTS ON ACCOUNT OF EXPORTS RECEIVABLES OR ON ACCOUNT OF NOT MEETING THE TIME COMMITMENTS BY THE FOREIGN DEBTORS WHICH R ESULTED IN THE CANCELATION OF THE FOREX TRANSACTIONS WITH THE BANK, AS A RESULT OF WHICH IMPUGNED LOSS WAS INCURRED. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE FOREIGN EXCHANG E FORWARD LOSS COULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED AS A NOTIONAL L OSS. AS THE R T STAR SOLITAIRES 4 SAME HAD RESULTED FROM COST OF CANCELLATION OF FORW ARD POSITION DUE TO MANDATORY CONDITIONS LAID DOWN BY THE RESERV E BANK OF INDIA AND AUTHORIZED DEALER. THE LD. CIT(A) ASKED THE ASSESSEE AS TO FURTHER JUSTIFY THAT THE IMPUGNED LO SS WAS NOT A NOTIONAL LOSS AND IT WAS ALLOWABLE UNDER THE INCOME TAX LAW. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THE FACTUAL AND LEGAL POSITI ON IN DETAIL, AND RELEVANT PART OF THE SUBMISSIONS IS REPRODUCED BELOW: A) THE AO HAS CONVENIENTLY OVERLOOKED THE ASSESSEE 'S SUBMISSION MADE VIDE LETTER DATED 30 TH DECEMBER 2011 WHEREIN THEY HAVE SUBMITTED AS UNDER: I) THE EXPORT TURNOVER WAS RS. 127.29 CRORE; II) THE IMPORT TURNOVER WAS RS. 34.64 CRORE; III) THE RESERVE BANK ALLOWS THE IMPORTER AND EXPOR TER TO TAKE POSITION IN THE FORWARD MARKET TO WITHSTAND TH E FLUCTUATIONS IN EXCHANGE RATE; IV) THE ASSESSEE HAS SUFFICIENTLY PROVED THAT THE FORWARD POSITION IS SUFFICIENTLY COVERED FOR EXPORT RECEIVABLE WHICH FROM THE BUSINESS ACTIVITIES; V) THERE IS NOT A SINGLE TRANSACTION IN THE FOREX W HICH IS OF SPECULATIVE NATURE; VI) THERE IS SUFFICIENT UNDERLYING RECEIVABLES WHIC H WERE CONSIDERED FOR TAKING UP FORWARD POSITION WITH THE AUTHORIZED DEAL ERS VIZ, BANKS; B) FURTHER, FOREX LOSS ON CANCELLATION OF FORWARD C ONTRACTS IS NOT A NOTIONAL LOSS BUT IT IS AN ACTUAL LOSS UND ER SECTION 37(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 AS HELD BY HON'BL E BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. BADRIDAS GAURIDU PVT. LTD., 261 ITR 256. C)AS REGARDS MARK TO MARKET LOSS (MTM LOSS) APPELLA NT SUBMITS, WHETHER ON ACCOUNT OF LAST YEAR'S ENTRY OR ON ACCOUNT OF REVALUATION OF CONTRACTS PENDING AT YEAR END, AS UNDER : - I) IT IS ONLY WITH AN INTENTION TO MITIGATE THE RI SK ASSOCIATED WITH BUSINESS THE APPELLANT HAS ENTERED INTO FORWARD EXCHANGE CONTRACTS; II) WHAT NEEDS TO BE SEEN IS WHETHER THE RISK WHICH THE R T STAR SOLITAIRES 5 APPELLANT HAS HEDGED BY WAY OF A FORWARD CONTRACT HAS AN UNDERLYING ASSET OR LIABILITY BY WAY OF DEBTORS OR CREDITORS; III) THE FORWARD CONTRACTS ENTERED DURING THE COURSE OF BUSINESS CREATES A LEGAL LIABILITY IRRESPECTIVE OF THE FACT THAT WHETHER IT MATURES DURING THE ACCOUNTING PERIO D OR BEYOND THE ACCOUNTING PERIOD; IV) IT IS INCORRECT TO STATE THAT THE CONTRACT DOES NOT RESULT IN AN ASSET OR A LIABILITY AND HENCE ITS REVALUATION D OES NOT ARISE; V) WHEN A LEGALLY TENABLE CONTRACT IS IN EXISTENCE, DULY SUPPORTED BY AN UNDERLYING ASSET AND THE CONTR ACT HAVING BEEN ENTERED DURING THE COURSE OF BUSINESS A ND FURTHER THAT THE EXCHANGE RATE AS ON DATE OF ENTERI NG THE CONTRACT AND AS AT THE YEAREND BEING ASCERTAINABLE, DUE EFFECT OF THE CONTRACT AT THE YEAREND HAS TO BE CONSIDERED WHILE ASSESSING APPELLANT INCOME.; VI) THE ENTIRE GAMUT OF THE IMPUGNED TRANSACTIONS IS AN INTEGRAL TO THE APPELLANT BUSINESS AND CANNOT BE CA LLED A CONTINGENT TRANSACTION; VII) THE AO FAILED TO SEE THAT SUCH EVENTS/TRANSACTIONS ARE PART AND PARCEL OF THE APPELLANT BUSINESS AND NOT E XTERNAL TO IT; THE APPELLANT HAS BEEN CONSISTENTLY FOLLOWING THE M ERCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING AND HAS BEEN VALUING THE YEAR- END OUTSTANDING FOREIGN EXCHANGE TRANSACTION IN TERMS O F ACCOUNTING STANDARD AS-1 1; IN THE CASE OF WOODWARD GOVERNOR, HON'BLE DELHI HIG H COURT (294 ITR 451) HAS OBSERVED - (A) THE LIABILIT Y ARISES OUT OF ALREADY CONCLUDED CONTRACTS, (B) THE LIABILI TY ALREADY STANDS ACCRUED THE MINUTE THE CONTRACT WAS ENTERED INTO, (C) THE MERE POSTPONEMENT OF THE PAYMENT TO DIFFERENT D ATE CAN NOT EXTINGUISH THE LIABILITY AND RENDER IT NOTIONAL OR CONTINGENT, (D) WHAT SHOULD BE CERTAIN IS THE INCUR RING OF THE LIABILITY AND IT BEING ESTIMATED WITH REASONABLE CE RTAINTY EVEN IT THE EXACT QUANTIFICATION IS NOT FEASIBLE AN D (E) IF THE LIABILITY IS DISCHARGED AT A FUTURE DATE IT WILL NEVERTHELESS BE A LIABILITY WHICH IS CERTAIN AND NO T CONTINGENT. THE ABOVE DECISION HAS BEEN APPROVED HON. SUPREME COURT (312 ITR 254). IN CONCLUSION THE HON'BLE BENC H STATED THAT IN ORDER TO FIND OUT IF AN EXPENDITURE IS DEDU CTIBLE THE R T STAR SOLITAIRES 6 FOLLOWING HAVE TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT - (A) WHETH ER THE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING FOLLOWED BY THE ASSESSEE IS MERCANTILE - WHICH BRINGS INTO DEBIT THE EXPENDITUR E AMOUNT FOR WHICH A LEGAL LIABILITY HAS BEEN INCURRED BEFOR E IT IS ACTUALLY DISBURSED AND BRINGS INTO CREDIT WHAT IS D UE IMMEDIATELY IT BECOMES DUE AND BEFORE IT IS ACTUALL Y RECEIVED; (B) WHETHER THE SAME SYSTEM IS FOLLOWED B Y THE ASSESSEE FROM THE VERY BEGINNING; (C) WHETHER THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN THE SAME TREATMENT TO LOSSES CLA IMED TO HAVE ACCRUED AND TO THE GAINS THAT MAY ACCRUE; ( D) WHETHER THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN CONSISTENT AND DEFINI TE IN MAKING ENTRIES IN THE ACCOUNT BOOKS IN RESPECT OF L OSSES AND GAINS; (E) WHETHER THE METHOD ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR MAKING ENTRIES IN THE BOOKS BOTH IN RE SPECT OF LOSSES AND GAINS IS AS PER NATIONALLY ACCEPTED ACCOUNTING STANDARDS AND (F) WHETHER THE SYSTEM ADO PTED IS FAIR AND REASONABLE OR IS ADOPTED ONLY WITH A VI EW TO REDUCING THE INCIDENCE OF TAXATION. IN THE CASE OF DCIT VS. BANK OF BAHARAIN AND KUWAIT ( ITA 4404 & 1883/MUM/2004, THE SPECIAL BENCH HAD OCCASION TO CONSIDER THE ALLOWABILITY OF MTM LOSS A ND HELD THAT MTM LOSS IN RESPECT OF FORWARD FOREIGN EXCHANGE IS ALLOWABLE. WHILE ALLOWING THE SAME THE HON 'BLE MEMBERS HAVE OBSERVED AS UNDER - A) A BINDING OBLIGATION ACCRUED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE T HE MINUTE IT ENTERED INTO A FORWARD CONTRACT; B) A CONSISTENT METHOD OF ACCOUNTING FOLLOWED BY THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE DISREGARDED ONLY ON THE GROUND T HAT A BETTER METHOD COULD BE ADOPTED; C) THE ASSESSEE HAS CONSISTENTLY FOLLOWED THE SAME METHOD OF ACCOUNTING IN REGARD TO RECOGNITION OF PR OFIT OR LOSS BOTH, IN RESPECT OF FORWARD FOREIGN EXCHANGE C ONTRACT AS PER RATE PREVAILING ON 31 MARCH; D) A LIABILITY IS TO HAVE CRYSTALLIZED WHEN A PENDING OBLIGATION ON THE BALANCE SHEET DATE IS DETERMINABL E WITH A REASONABLE CERTAINTY. THE CONSIDERATION FOR ACCOU NTING THE INCOME ARE ENTIRELY ON DIFFERENT FOOTING; E) AS PER AS-11, WHEN THE TRANSACTION IS NOT SETTLE D IN THE SAME ACCOUNTING PERIOD AS THAT IN WHICH IT OCCURRED, THE EXCHANGE DIFFERENCE ARISES OVER MORE THAN ONE ACCOUNTING PERIOD; R T STAR SOLITAIRES 7 F) A BINDING OBLIGATION ACCRUED AGAINST THE ASSESSE E THE MINUTE IT ENTERED INTO A FORWARD CONTRACT; G) THE FORWARD CONTRACTS HAVE ALL THE TRAPPINGS OF STOCK-IN- TRADE; H) IN ULTIMATE ANALYSIS, THERE IS NO REVENUE EFFECT AND IT IS ONLY THE TIMING OF THE TAXATION OF LOSS/PROFIT. XII)IN THE CASE OF ONGC VS. CIT 322 ITR 180 THE HON 'BLE SUPREME COURT HAS REITERATED THE PRINCIPLES LAID DO WN ABOVE WHILE ANSWERING THE QUESTION IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. XIII) FURTHER, THE LIABILITIES IN FOREIGN EXCHANGE WERE INCURRED DURING THE NORMAL COURSE OF BUSINESS AND T HE RESTATEMENT OF THE FORWARD CONTRACT OBLIGATION WAS DONE AS PER AS- 11 IN A CONSISTENT MANNER OVER THE YEARS. I N FACT, WHEN THE GAIN EARNED ON SUCH REVALUATION WAS ACCEPT ED AND BROUGHT TO TAX IN THE RESPECTIVE YEARS AND THER E IS NO REASON TO ARRIVE AT A DIFFERENT CONCLUSION MERELY B ECAUSE THERE IS LOSS DURING THE YEAR. XIV)IT IS NOT OUT OF PLACE TO MENTION THAT THE HON' BLE SUPREME COURT, IN THE CASE OF ONGC CITED ABOVE, UPHELD THE SAME PRINCIPLES THAT WERE LAID DOWN IN THE CASE OF WOODW ARD GOVERNOR, AND THE LOSS WAS HELD AS ALLOWABLE IN SIM ILAR CIRCUMSTANCES PARTICULARLY WHEN THE BUSINESS OF ONG C IS NOT THAT OF A FOREIGN EXCHANGE DEALER. WHAT MATTERS IS WHETHER THE FORWARD CONTRACT TRANSACTION WAS ENTERE D DURING THE COURSE OF REGULAR BUSINESS AND IT IS NOT A TAINTED TRANSACTION WITH A COLOR OF SPECULATIVE TRANSACTION . XV) THE ISSUE OF ALLOWING THE LOSS ON ACCOUNT OF REVALUATION OF PENDING FORWARD CONTRACTS WAS CONSID ERED BY THE HON'BLE FIAT MUMBAI BENCH IN THE CASE OF M/S . BHAVANI GEMS VS. ACIT (ITA NO. 2855/MUM/2010 DATED 30-03-2011 FOR A Y 2006-07) 3.4. THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE WERE CONSIDER ED BY THE LD. CIT(A) EXTENSIVELY, AND THE LOSS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS ALLOWED BY HIM ALONG WITH DETAILED FIN DINGS. RELEVANT PART OF HIS OBSERVATIONS IS REPRODUCED HER EUNDER FOR READY REFERENCE: 3.2. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FINDINGS OF T HE A.O IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS WELL AS THE R T STAR SOLITAIRES 8 SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT. IT IS AN UNDISPUTED F ACT THAT THE ASSESSEE IS FOLLOWING THE MERCANTILE SYSTE M OF ACCOUNTING AND THE LOSS IN QUESTION HAS BEEN WORKED OUT BY THE APPELLANT ON THE BASIS OF FOREIGN EXCHANGE FLUCTUATIONS IN RESPECT OF THE FORWARD CONTRACTS IN RESPECT OF UNREALIZED EXPORT PROCEEDS. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE IS FOLLOWING THE SAME PRINCIP LE CONTINUOUSLY WHERE SUCH GAIN OR LOSS ARE OFFERED EI THER FOR TAXATION IF THERE IS SOME GAIN AND DECLARED AS LOSS IF FLUCTUATION IN RATE IS ADVERSE TO THE ASSESSEE. THE REFORE, FROM THESE FACTS IN THE LIGHT OF THE CASE LAWS RELI ED UPON BY THE APPELLANT IT IS CLEAR THAT THE LOSS IN QUESTION IS AN ASCERTAINED LIABILITY EXISTING AS ON 31.03.2009. IN MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING FOR GETTING A CLEAR PICTURE OF PROFIT/LOSS, THE APP ELLANT HAS CORRECTLY WORKED OUT THE LOSS ON FOREIGN EXCHAN GE FLUCTUATIONS WITH REFERENCE TO THE FORWARD CONTRACT WHICH CANNOT BE DISALLOWED BY HOLDING IT AS A MERE NOTIONAL LOSS. ACCORDINGLY, THE DISALLOWANCE OF THE LOSS MADE BY THE A.O DOES NOT APPEAR JUSTIFIED. HEN CE, THE SAME IS DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. 3.5. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSE E AND FINDINGS RECORDED BY THE LD. CIT(A). WE HAVE ALSO G ONE THROUGH THE JUDGMENTS RELIED UPON BY THE LD. COUNSEL BEFORE LD. CIT(A). IT IS NOTED THAT HONBLE SUPREME COURT HAS ALREADY DEALT WITH THIS ISSUE EXTENSIVE IN ITS JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF WOODWARD GOVERNOR, (SUPRA). FURTHER, THE ISSUES INV OLVED IN THIS CASE WERE ALSO ADDRESSED BY HONBLE SUPREME CO URT IN ANOTHER JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF ONGC LTD. V. CIT (S UPRA). IT IS FURTHER NOTED BY US THAT THE IDENTICAL ISSUE WITH R EGARD TO ALLOWABILITY OF MARK-TO-MARKET LOSS (MTM LOSS) IN R ESPECT OF FORWARD FOREIGN EXCHANGE HAS BEEN DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY HONBLE SPECIAL BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL I N THE CASE OF DCIT VS. BANK OF BAHARAIN AND KUWAIT, (SUPRA). D URING THE COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE US, NO DISTINCTION COULD B E MADE OUT R T STAR SOLITAIRES 9 BY THE LD. DR IN FACTS OR IN THE POSITION OF LAW. N O CONTRARY JUDGMENT HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE. NOTHING WR ONG COULD BE POINTED IN THE FINDINGS RECORDED BY THE LD. CIT( A). IT IS FURTHER NOTED BY US ON THE BASIS OF FACTS BROUGHT B EFORE US THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN FOLLOWING SAME PRINCIPLE AND METHOD OF ACCOUNTING CONSISTENTLY. IT WAS STATED BY LD COUNSEL, WHICH REMAINED UN-REBUTTED FROM OTHER SIDE , THAT IN PAST FOREIGN EXCHANGE GAINS AND LOSSES, BOTH, WERE OFFERED IN THE RETURN. IN CASE GAIN WAS EARNED, THEN, THE SAME WAS OFFERED AS PART OF INCOME AND TAXED BY THE AO ACCOR DINGLY. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, IF LOSS IS INCURRED THEN THE SAME SHOULD ALSO BE ALLOWED AND REVENUE CANNOT BE PERMIT TED TO FOLLOW DOUBLE STANDARDS IN THIS MANNER. THUS, WE FI ND THAT LOSS HAS BEEN RIGHTLY ALLOWED BY THE LD. CIT(A). TH US, NO INTERFERENCE IS CALLED FOR IN THE ORDER OF LD. CIT( A) AND THE SAME IS HEREBY UPHELD. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 22 ND JULY, 2016. SD/- (JOGINDER SINGH) SD/- (ASHWANI TANEJA) ! / JUDICIAL MEMBER ' ! / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ! MUMBAI; % DATED 22/07 /2016 CTX? P.S/. . . R T STAR SOLITAIRES 10 #$%&'(')% / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. '() / THE APPELLANT 2. *+() / THE RESPONDENT. 3. , , - ( ' ) / THE CIT, MUMBAI. 4. , , - / CIT(A)- , MUMBAI 5. 01 *2 , , '# 23 , ! / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. 45 6! / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, +0' * //TRUE COPY// / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , ! / ITAT, MUMBAI