Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-1 v. Albasta Wholesale Services Limited
[Citation -2019-LL-0719-77]

Citation 2019-LL-0719-77
Appellant Name Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-1
Respondent Name Albasta Wholesale Services Limited
Court HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 19/07/2019
Assessment Year 2011-12
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags foreign exchange fluctuation loss
Bot Summary: The short question urged by the Revenue is whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal erred in confirming the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax CIT and allowing the claim of the Assessee of Rs. 35,42,20,000/- as foreign exchange fluctuation loss ITA 666/2019 Page 1 of 3 under Section 37 of the Act 4. Learned counsel for the Revenue has drawn the attention of the Court to the order dated 24th March, 2014 passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 143(3) of the Act setting out the case of the Assessee as regards the above loans. The Assessee has indicated the amount given by it as loan to its subsidiary in the United States of America and the amount realized on the liquidation of such subsidiary and claimed the difference therein as exchange loss. Without conducting any inquiry of the fact whether there was any loss on account of the fluctuation in the foreign exchange and rate of the US Dollar within the relevant time, the AO simply disallowed the above amount. The disallowance could not have been without a preceding inquiry into the claim made by the Assessee. In fact the ITAT in its order noted the submission on behalf of the Assessee that as against US 10 million given as loan it received US10,01,50,000 and US 1,50,000 was offered as income of the Assessee for the current AY which was accepted by the AO. However, due to fluctuation in the rate of vis-a-vis Rupee, the Assessee realized Rs. 443,07,10,000/-. No substantial question of law arises from the impugned order of the ITAT. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.


IN HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI ITA 666/2019 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- 1 Appellant Through: Ms.Vibhooti Malhotra, Advocate. versus M/S. ALBASTA WHOLESALE SERVICES LIMITED Respondent Through: None. CORAM: JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR JUSTICE TALWANT SINGH ORDER 19.07.2019 C.M.No.32144/2019 (Exemption) 1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. ITA 666/2019 2. This appeal has been filed by Revenue against order dated 4 th February, 2019 passed by ITAT in ITA No. 6546/Del/2015 for Assessment Year 2011-12. 3. short question urged by Revenue is whether Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) erred in confirming order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [ CIT (A) ] and allowing claim of Assessee of Rs. 35,42,20,000/- as foreign exchange fluctuation loss ITA 666/2019 Page 1 of 3 under Section 37 of Act? 4. Learned counsel for Revenue has drawn attention of Court to order dated 24th March, 2014 passed by Assessing Officer under Section 143(3) of Act setting out case of Assessee as regards above loans. Assessee has indicated amount given by it as loan to its subsidiary in United States of America (USA) and amount realized on liquidation of such subsidiary and claimed difference therein as exchange loss . Without conducting any inquiry of fact whether there was any loss on account of fluctuation in foreign exchange and rate of US Dollar within relevant time, AO simply disallowed above amount. This is despite return being scrutinized under Section 143(3) of Act. 5. disallowance could not have been without preceding inquiry into claim made by Assessee. In fact ITAT in its order noted submission on behalf of Assessee that as against US $ 10 million given as loan it received US$10,01,50,000 and US$ 1,50,000 was offered as income of Assessee for current AY which was accepted by AO. However, due to fluctuation in rate of $ vis-a-vis Rupee, Assessee realized Rs. 443,07,10,000/-. difference between Rupee value of 10 million US$ advanced in 2008 and received back in 2010 was Rs. 35,42,20,000/- (478,49,30,000 minus 443,07,10,000). This difference was claimed as loss on account of foreign exchange fluctuation. Therefore, CIT and ITAT were right in reversing above disallowance. ITA 666/2019 Page 2 of 3 6. No substantial question of law arises from impugned order of ITAT. appeal is accordingly dismissed. S. MURALIDHAR, J. TALWANT SINGH, J. JULY 19, 2019 mr ITA 666/2019 Page 3 of 3 Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-1 v. Albasta Wholesale Services Limited
Report Error