Commissioner of Income Tax vs Heidrick and Struggles Ind. (P.) Ltd.

CM 16131/2008 (for condonation of delay)

We have heard the learned Counsel for the applicant/appellant. The delay is condoned. This application stands disposed of.

CM 16130/2008

This is an application seeking recall of the order dated 12-8-2008 on the ground that the tax effect has been wrongly indicated as Rs. 1,67,300 in the memorandum of appeal. Ms. Bansal who appears for the appellant/applicant states that on verification she found that the tax effect had been wrongly computed. The appeal was dismissed because the tax effect was below Rs. 4 lakhs which is the lower limit prescribed by the Central Board of Direct Taxes for appeals to this Court. She submitted that on a correct calculation the tax effect actually works out to Rs. 7,60,263.

Considering the fact that this was a mistake and that the tax effect was more than Rs. 4 lakhs, we allow this application and restore the appeal by recalling the order dated 12-8-2008.

This application stands disposed of.

ITA 607/2008

This appeal is directed against the order dated 6-7-2007 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in ITA No 1533/Delhi/2004 relating to the assessment year 2001-02. The revenue has proposed the following questions:

(a) Whether ITAT was correct in law in allowing loss of Rs. 18,48,351 incurred by the assessee on account of foreign exchange rate fluctuation, treating the same as revenue loss?

(b) Whether ITAT was correct in law in allowing loss to the assessee ignoring the fact that the said loss was notional and contingent as had not accrued during the year?

(c) Whether ITAT was correct in law in deleting the addition of Rs. 18,48,351 being foreign exchange fluctuation loss, made by the Assessing Officer to the net profit, while computing book profit u/s 115JB of the Act?

(d) Whether ITAT was correct in law in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,26,360 made by the Assessing Officer to the net profit on account of provision for bad & doubtful debts invoking the provisions of Explanation to Section 115JB(2) of the Income Tax Act?

(e) Whether ITAT was correct in law in holding that the provision towards bad & doubtful debt cannot be said to be the provision for liability and therefore, could not be assessee to the book profit u/s 115JB(2) of the Act?

We, however, note that questions (a) to (e) as proposed by the revenue would have to be answered against the revenue in view of the decision of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Woodward Governor India Pvt. Ltd., . Furthermore, questions (d) and (e) which have been proposed by the revenue are also covered by the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax-IV, Delhi Vs. HCL Comnet Systems and Services Ltd., . Since the questions proposed by the revenue already stand answered and covered by the aforesaid decision, no substantial question of law arises for our consideration. This appeal is consequently dismissed.