The Commissioner Of Income Tax – 4, Mumbai v. Apurva Vikram Dalal
High Court
18 Apr 2011 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax – 4, Mumbai v. Apurva Vikram Dalal
Date of order
18 Apr 2011
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Allowed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Income Tax – 4, Mumbai v. Apurva Vikram Dalal, the High Court (2011) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
Decision: 3.In this view of the matter, the appeal is allowed by answering the question in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1659 OF 2010
The Commissioner of Income Tax – 4, Mumbai
..Appellant.
Versus
Apurva Vikram Dalal..Respondent.
Mr.Vimal Gupta for the appellant.None for the respondent.
CORAM : J.P. Devadhar &
Smt.R.S. Dalvi, JJ.
P.C. :
DATE : 18[th] April, 2011.
1.Heard. Admit on the following substantial question of law.
“Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal was justified in holding that derivatives loss of Rs.20,69,710/- is to be treated as non-speculative business loss and not speculative loss as held by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the learned CIT (Appeals) ?”
2.None for the respondent, though served. Affidavit of service
filed by the learned counsel for the Revenue is taken on record. The aforesaid question is answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee by the decision of this Court in the case of The Commissioner of Income Tax, Central – IV, Mumbai V/s. Shri Bharat R. Ruia (HUF), being
Income Tax Appeal No.1539 of 2010 decided on 18-04-2011.
3.In this view of the matter, the appeal is allowed by answering the question in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.
(Smt.R.S. Dalvi, J.)
(J.P. Devadhar, J.)
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.