Case LawHigh Court › Itxa/418/2009 Of The Commissioner Of Inc...

Itxa/418/2009 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax-7, Mumbai v. M/S. Tacke Wind Energy India P. Ltd., Mumbai

High Court 21 Apr 2009 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Itxa/418/2009 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax-7, Mumbai v. M/S. Tacke Wind Energy India P. Ltd., Mumbai
Date of order
21 Apr 2009
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Dismissed

Case summary

In Itxa/418/2009 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax-7, Mumbai v. M/S. Tacke Wind Energy India P. Ltd., Mumbai, the High Court (2009) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.

Decision: Appeal is dismissed in limini with no order as to costs.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.

The order — as passed by the High Court

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTIONINCOME TAX APPEAL NO.418 OF 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.418 OF 2009 Commissioner of Income Tax ..Appellant. V/s. M/s.Tacke Wind Energy India P.Ltd. ..Respondent. Mr.Suresh Kumar for appellant. Ms.A.Vissanjee with S.J.Mehta for respondent. CORAM : V.C.DAGA AND J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. DATED : 21ST APRIL, 2009. P.C. :- 1. Heard learned for the appellant and the respondent. The appeal seeks to raise the following substantial questions of law :- a) Whether the foreign exchange losses suffered by the assessee on the revenue account on account of fluctuation in foreign exchange on the last date of the accounting year ending March 31, 2001 (i.e. the assessment year in question) being a contingent notional liability was allowable, as deduction under the Income Tax Act ? b) Whether the foreign exchange losses arisen on account of revaluation of the foreign exchange borrowings utilized on revenue account was not allowable as deduction under the Income Tax Act as repayments of these borrowings fell after the accounting year under consideration and, therefore, liability for such losses did not arise in the accounting year under consideration ? c) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT was justified in ignoring the - = : 2 : = - fact that method of accounting as per AS 11 is not the deciding factor for allowability or otherwise of a deduction claimed and also that for accrual of liability, it is necessary that the assessee is obliged to discharge the same ? d) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT was justified in upholding the order of CIT(A) in allowing foreign exchange fluctuation loss ignoring the fact that the loss was notional as a result of restatement of liabilities and not actual loss qualifying for deduction as expenditure ? 2. All the issues raised in this appeal relates to the question of foreign exchange loss suffered by the assessee on revenue account of fluctuation in foreign exchange on the last date of the accounting year ending 31st March, 2001. The issues raised herein is squarely covered by the Apex Court judgment in the case of Commissioner of Income Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi V/s. M/s.Woodward Governor India P.Ltd.in Civil Appeal No.2206 of 2009 along with other matters decided on 8th April, 2009. In this view of the matter, no substantial question of law arise in this appeal. Appeal is dismissed in limini with no order as to costs. (V.C.DAGA, J.) (V.C.DAGA, J.) (J.P.DEVADHAR, J.) (J.P.DEVADHAR, J.) - = : 3 : = -
Facing a similar income-tax issue?
Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.
✅ File an income-tax appeal (CIT(A)/ITAT) → 💬 Ask our CA
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation. Full disclaimer & Terms.
Contact Careers Media / Press · Privacy Terms Refund Cancellation Cookies Disclaimer
© 2026 EaseValue Advisors LLP · LLPIN ACN-4920 · Jaipur, Rajasthan