By K. B. Bhujle, Advocate
CIT vs. D. Chetan and Co.; 390 ITR 36 (Bom):
The Assessee was engaged in the business of import and export
of diamonds. For the A. Y. 2009-10, the assessee explained that the amount of
Rs. 78.10 lakhs claimed as loss was on account of hedging transactions entered
into to safeguard variation in exchange rates affecting its transact5ions of
import and export. The Assessing Officer disallowed the claim on the ground
that it was a notional loss of a contingent liability debited to the profit and
loss account. The Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal allowed the
assessee’s claim.
On appeal by the Revenue, the Bombay High Court upheld the
decision of the Tribunal and held as under:
“i) The Tribunal concluded that the transaction
entered into by the assessee was not in the nature of speculative activities.
Further, the hedging transactions were entered into so as to cover variation in
foreign exchange rate which would impact its business of import and export of
diamonds. These concurrent findings of fact were not shown to be perverse in
any manner.
ii) The Assessing Officer in the assessment order
did not find that the transaction entered into by the assessee was speculative
in nature. At no point of time did the department challenge the assertion of
the assessee that the activity of entering into forward contract was in the
regular course of its business only to safeguard against the loss on account of
foreign exchange variation. The Department never contended that the transaction
was speculative but only disallowed on the ground that it was notional.
iii) Thus, it was to be concluded that the
transactions entered were only in regular course of business and not speculative.
Therefore, no substantial question of law arose.”
