Writ Petition No. 2532 of 2015 and Income Tax Appeal No. 2124 of 2013. Case: S. Vinodkumar Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. Vs The Additional Commissioner of Income Tax and Ors.. High Court of Bombay (India)
| Case Number | Writ Petition No. 2532 of 2015 and Income Tax Appeal No. 2124 of 2013 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: J.D. Mistry, Sr. Counsel, Madhur Agarwal, Rajesh Poojari i/b Mint and Confreres and For Respondents: Ashok Kotangale, Padma Divakar, Nirmal Mohanty and S.V. Bharucha, Advs. |
| Judges | M. S. Sanklecha and B. P. Colabawalla, JJ. |
| Issue | Income Tax Act, 1961 - Sections 254(2), 260A, 36(1)(iii), 43(5) |
| Judgement Date | January 13, 2016 |
| Court | High Court of Bombay (India) |
Judgment:
-
Income Tax Appeal No. 2124 of 2013 filed under section 260A of the Income Tax Act 1961 (Act) challenges the order of the Tribunal dated 3rd May 2013 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal) for the AY 2008-09. The Writ Petition No. 2532 of 2014 assails the order of the Tribunal dated 4th March 2015 rejecting the Petitioners' Miscellaneous Application seeking to rectify / modify the order dated 3rd May 2013 which is under Appeal before us.
-
We first take up Income Tax Appeal No. 2124 of 2013 for consideration. After hearing the parties, we find that the following substantial questions of law arise for consideration:-
(A) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was right in confirming that disallowance of Rs.13,52,741/- under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act?
(B) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was right in holding that the appellant has not proved that interest-free funds were used to give the advance for acquisition of office premises?
(C) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal erred in not deciding the question of whether the loss of Rs.4.02 crores is a notional loss or not?
(D) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction in holding that the loss of Rs.4.02 crores is a speculation loss under section 43(5) of the Act?
(E) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was right in holding that the forward contracts entered...
To continue reading
Request your trial