The Amendment To Section 40(A)(Ia) Of The Act By Financeact, 2010 W.e.f. 01.04.2010 Is Retrospective ? v. Calcutta Export Company, (2018) 404.Itr 654 (Sc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION In Appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.638 OF 2018 Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-14, Mumbai Vs.Foods and Inns. Ltd. .. Appellant .. Respondent Mr. Suresh Kumar for the Appellant.Mr. Ajay R. Singh for the Respondent. CORAM : DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR & VALMIKI SA MENEZES, J.J.DATE : 22ND JULY, 2022. P.C. : 1.This is an Income Tax Appeal filed under Section 260A of the IncomeTax Act, 1961, against the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,Mumbai dated 7th June 2016 in Income Tax Appeal No.1262/Mum/2011,along with connected matters. The following two questions have beenproposed in the present Appeal for our consideration :- (i)Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and inlaw, the Hon’ble Tribunal is correct in law in deletingdisallowance of loss of foreign exchange by holding thesame is not speculative loss but was allowable as businessloss ?law, the Hon’ble Tribunal is correct in law in deletingdisallowance of loss of foreign exchange by holding thesame is not speculative loss but was allowable as businessloss ? (ii)Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and inlaw, the Hon’ble Tribunal is correct in law in holding that1/2law, the Hon’ble Tribunal is correct in law in holding that1/2 the amendment to Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act by FinanceAct, 2010 w.e.f. 01.04.2010 is retrospective ? 2.However, learned counsel for the parties agree that question no.1 iscovered by a judgment of this court in Income Tax Appeal No.1804 of 2017dated 22nd January 2020 (Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-14 Vs.Foods and Inns. Ltd.) in the case of the assessee and that question of lawfiguring at sr.no.(ii) is also covered by the Apex Court’s judgment in the caseof Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Calcutta Export Company, (2018) 404.ITR 654 (SC) 3.In that view of the matter, no substantial questions of law arise. TheAppeal is dismissed. [ VALMIKI SA MENEZES, J. ] [ DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, J. ]