The Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax(OSD), Circle-5, Pune vs M/s. Runwal Realtors Pvt. Ltd
Finin2min Judgment Intelligence is provided for general informational and educational purposes only. It is not legal, tax, accounting, investment or other professional advice and is not a substitute for advice on the user's specific facts. The Finin2min summary, Q&A, reliance profile, fact-match indicators, comparisons and practical takeaways are editorial analysis and are not part of the Court/Tribunal judgment. Before citing, filing, advising or acting on a case, read the complete official judgment/order, verify the cause title, case number, coram, date, applicable statutory text and jurisdiction, and check subsequent appellate history, review/SLP status and later amendments. A similar fact pattern does not guarantee the same outcome. No advocate-client, CA-client or other professional relationship is created by use of this page.
Case in 2 minutes
Waiver on discounted redemption of foreign currency notes/ECB instruments: taxability under sections 28(i), 28(iv) or 41(1).
Result: Operative order controls. The controlling text is the reasoning and operative order in the packaged judgment, not this editorial summary.
Case snapshot
Sections / provisions: 28(I)
Questions before the Court / Tribunal
- Waiver on discounted redemption of foreign currency notes/ECB instruments: taxability under sections 28(i), 28(iv) or 41(1).
- What factual, statutory and procedural conditions control the relief?
- How does the operative order apply to the parties and the challenged proceeding?
Material facts and procedural background
आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.124/PUN/2018 िनधारण वष / Assessment Year : 2014-15 The Jt. Commissioner of M/s. Runwal Realtors Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax(OSD), Vs 41/12, Runwal Plaza, Karve Circle-5, Pune. Road, Pune – 411004. PAN: AAACR 8222 Q Appellant / Revenue Respondent / Assessee
Assessee by Shri Sanket Joshi & Shri Girish Ladda – AR’s Revenue by Shri P R Mane – DR Date of hearing 16/02/2023 Date of pronouncement 02/03/2023
“1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax '(Appeals) has erred in allowing the appeal ' of the assessee on addition of Rs. 1,43,71,02,003/- on redemption of Floating Rate Notes, since the assessee had income through waiver of loans during the course of normal business activities.
2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of income-tax (Appeals) has erred is not appreciating that floating Rates notes is a loan raised by the assessee for trading purpose and waiver thereof is taxable.
2. Brief Facts of the Case : The brief facts of the case as mentioned
Appellant / assessee submissions
The packaged judgment does not separately label the appellant's submissions in an independently extractable passage. No contention is inferred; read the full order.
Revenue / respondent submissions
The packaged judgment does not separately label the respondent's submissions in an independently extractable passage. No contention is inferred; read the full order.
Court / Tribunal analysis and reasoning
7. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. There
itself. In these facts, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held it to be
Operative decision and relief
grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue are dismissed.
14. In the result, appeal of the Revenue is Dismissed.
Ratio and legal principle
- The packaged judgment addresses Waiver on discounted redemption of foreign currency notes/ECB instruments: taxability under sections 28(i), 28(iv) or 41(1). The precise proposition must be read with the Court/Tribunal's reasoning and operative directions.
- Reliance depends on matching the statutory version, jurisdiction, procedural stage and material evidence recorded in the judgment.
Why this judgment matters
This decision is relevant to practitioners and affected parties dealing with waiver on discounted redemption of foreign currency notes/ecb instruments: taxability under sections 28(i), 28(iv) or 41(1). Its value lies in showing how the adjudicating forum connected the applicable rule to the proved facts and procedural posture.
Practitioner action points
- Match the statutory version, jurisdiction, procedural stage and decisive evidence before relying on the result.
- Verify current appellate, review and SLP history and any later amendment or controlling authority.
- Attach the complete judgment to the working paper or filing and cite the paragraph/page supporting the proposition.
Can I rely on this judgment?
| Authority level | ITAT |
|---|---|
| Source integrity | Sanitized readable full judgment copy packaged; official primary replacement pending |
| Repository release | HOLD_SOURCE_OR_LATER_HISTORY |
| Reliance rule | Verify current history and cite the judgment's narrow proposition, not the editorial headnote. |
Does this case match your facts?
Stronger match when
- The same primary issue is raised.
- The same statutory version and jurisdiction apply.
- The procedural stage and burden of proof are comparable.
- The material documentary record is substantially similar.
Weaker / distinguishable when
- A later higher-court ruling changes the position.
- The statutory provision or relevant period differs.
- The evidence or procedural chronology is materially different.
- A defect decisive here was cured in the user's case.
Questions this judgment answers
What was the main dispute in The Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax(OSD), Circle-5, Pune vs M/s. Runwal Realtors Pvt. Ltd?
Waiver on discounted redemption of foreign currency notes/ECB instruments: taxability under sections 28(i), 28(iv) or 41(1).
Which facts matter most?
आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.124/PUN/2018 िनधारण वष / Assessment Year : 2014-15 The Jt. Commissioner of M/s. Runwal Realtors Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax(OSD), Vs 41/12, Runwal Plaza, Karve Circle-5, Pune. Road, Pune – 411004. PAN: AAACR 8222 Q Appellant / Revenue Respondent / Assessee
What did the ITAT Pune decide?
14. In the result, appeal of the Revenue is Dismissed.
What legal principle can be taken from the judgment?
The packaged judgment addresses Waiver on discounted redemption of foreign currency notes/ECB instruments: taxability under sections 28(i), 28(iv) or 41(1). The precise proposition must be read with the Court/Tribunal's reasoning and operative directions. Reliance depends on matching the statutory version, jurisdiction, procedural stage and material evidence recorded in the judgment.
Which provisions should be checked?
28(I)
When is the case most useful?
When the user's facts raise the same issue - Waiver on discounted redemption of foreign currency notes/ECB instruments: taxability under sections 28(i), 28(iv) or 41(1) - at a comparable procedural stage and under the same statutory version.
What could distinguish the case?
Different evidence, jurisdiction, statutory period, procedural chronology, or later controlling authority can materially change the result.
Can it be cited without another current-law check?
No. Read the packaged judgment and verify current appellate/review/SLP history, statutory amendments and jurisdiction before citation or advice.
Section / provision impact
- 28(I) - apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
Case network
Similar issue / useful comparison
- Bridge India Fund, New Delhi v. ACIT - ITAT Mumbai - I Bench
- SECUNDRABAD CLUB VS. C.I.T.-V - Supreme Court of India
- PCIT v. Indravadan Jain, HUF - Court / Tribunal to be verified
Different outcome / possible distinction
- ACIT CIR 6(1) VS ASAHI INFRA & PROJECTS LIMITED - Remanded / restored
- ITO 32(2)(3) VS MAYUR R KAMDAR - Dismissed
Full judgment and source control
Read / download packaged judgment record
Source class: SANITIZED_LOCAL_FULL_JUDGMENT_COPY_PRIMARY_PENDING · Repository status: HOLD_SOURCE_OR_LATER_HISTORY
Finin2min Judgment Intelligence is provided for general informational and educational purposes only. It is not legal, tax, accounting, investment or other professional advice and is not a substitute for advice on the user's specific facts. The Finin2min summary, Q&A, reliance profile, fact-match indicators, comparisons and practical takeaways are editorial analysis and are not part of the Court/Tribunal judgment. Before citing, filing, advising or acting on a case, read the complete official judgment/order, verify the cause title, case number, coram, date, applicable statutory text and jurisdiction, and check subsequent appellate history, review/SLP status and later amendments. A similar fact pattern does not guarantee the same outcome. No advocate-client, CA-client or other professional relationship is created by use of this page.