Case LawHigh Court › Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax -19 v. M/...

Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax -19 v. M/S. Ratnadeep Impex

High Court 05 Aug 2019 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax -19 v. M/S. Ratnadeep Impex
Date of order
05 Aug 2019
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Dismissed

The order — as passed by the High Court

Case summary

In Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax -19 v. M/S. Ratnadeep Impex, the High Court (2019) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.

Issue: P.C.: 1.Revenue is in the appeal against the judgment of theIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai ("the Tribunal" forshort) dated 20.5.2016 raising following question for ourconsideration:- " Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law,Mark to Market losses on the date of balance s...

Decision: Under these circumstances, this Appeal is also dismissed. [ S.J.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYO.O.C.J. INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 616 OF 2017 Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -19..Appellant Versus M/s. Ratnadeep Impex..Respondent ................... Mr. Ashok Kotangle a/w Ms. Dhruti Kapdia & Mr. Prabhakar S.Ranshur for the Appellant Mr. Ashok Kotangle a/w Ms. Dhruti Kapdia & Mr. Prabhakar S.Ranshur for the Appellant ................... CORAM : AKIL KURESHI & S.J. KATHAWALLA, JJ. DATE : AUGUST 5, 2019. P.C.: 1.Revenue is in the appeal against the judgment of theIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai ("the Tribunal" forshort) dated 20.5.2016 raising following question for ourconsideration:- " Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law,Mark to Market losses on the date of balance sheet in respect ofunexpired foreign exchange forward contract was in the nature of acontingent or notional loss, not eligible for deduction u/S. 37 of theI.T. Act, 1961?" 2. Learned counsel for the Revenue candidly brought to our notice a fact that this Court in the case of CIT Vs. D. Chetan & Co[1], has examined such an issue rejecting theRevenue's appeal. Under these circumstances, this Appeal is also dismissed. [ S.J. KATHAWALLA, J. ] [ AKIL KURESHI, J ] 1[2017] 390 ITR 36 (Bom)
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