Asstt. CIT v. Sociedade De Fomento Industrial (P) Ltd.

Case Laws Analysis
REFERRED CIT v. Vinergy International (P) Ltd. 2016 TaxPub(DT) 3773 (Bom-HC)
REFERRED CIT v. Woodward Governor India P. Ltd. 2009 TaxPub(DT) 1628 (SC)

SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT


The Tax Publishers2024 TaxPub(DT) 1770 (Bom-HC) IN THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT M.S. SONAK & VALMIKI MENEZES, JJ Asstt. CIT v. Sociedade De Fomento Industrial (P) Ltd. Tax Appeal No. 379 of 2024 (Filing No.) 3 April, 2024 Appellant by: Susan Linhares, Standing Counsel. Respondent by: Nishant Thakkar, Ms Linette Rodrigues and Jasmin Amalsadvala, Advocates. ORDER Heard Ms S. Linhares, learned Standing Counsel for the Appellant and Mr Thakkar who appears with Ms L. Rodrigues and Ms J. Amalsadvala for the Respondent. 2. The challenge in this appeal is to the ITAT's order dated 12-9-2022. 3. By a separate order, we have condoned the delay in instituting this appeal, and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, we have taken up this appeal for consideration. 4. Ms Linhares submits that this appeal raises the following substantial questions of law: (a) Whether on the fact and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble ITAT erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 8,65,74,413 made on account of disallowance of foreign exchange fluctuation loss on sale proceeds held in the EEFC account as the sale proceeds which were already received by the assessee and the assessee was not under obligation to keep sale proceeds under EEFC account? SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT

The Tax Publishers2024 TaxPub(DT) 1770 (Bom-HC)

IN THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT

M.S. SONAK & VALMIKI MENEZES, JJ

Asstt. CIT v. Sociedade De Fomento Industrial (P) Ltd.

Tax Appeal No. 379 of 2024 (Filing No.)

3 April, 2024

Appellant by: Susan Linhares, Standing Counsel.

Respondent by: Nishant Thakkar, Ms Linette Rodrigues and Jasmin Amalsadvala, Advocates.

ORDER

Heard Ms S. Linhares, learned Standing Counsel for the Appellant and Mr Thakkar who appears with Ms L. Rodrigues and Ms J. Amalsadvala for the Respondent.

2. The challenge in this appeal is to the ITAT's order dated 12-9-2022.

3. By a separate order, we have condoned the delay in instituting this appeal, and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, we have taken up this appeal for consideration.

4. Ms Linhares submits that this appeal raises the following substantial questions of law:

(a) Whether on the fact and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble ITAT erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 8,65,74,413 made on account of disallowance of foreign exchange fluctuation loss on sale proceeds held in the EEFC account as the sale proceeds which were already received by the assessee and the assessee was not under obligation to keep sale proceeds under EEFC account?