Please click on the categories to the right to find what you are looking for. Click on this icon to download the file. You will need a PDF reader to view the files. You can download one for free from Foxit 1.8 MB or from Adobe 20MB.

(405.0 KiB, 1,366 DLs)

Download: shree_capital_derivatives_speculative.pdf

Futures & Options are speculative transactions u/s 43(5). S. 43 (5)(d) is not retrospective

 

In respect of AY 2004-2005, the assessee suffered a loss on account of trading in futures and options. S. 43 (5) defines a “speculative transaction” as one in which a contract for purchase and sale of any commodity, including stocks and shares, is settled otherwise than by actual delivery. Clause (d) was inserted in s. 43 (5) by the Finance Act, 2005 w.e.f 1.4.2006 to provide that “an eligible transaction of trading in derivatives” shall not be deemed to be a speculative transaction. The Special Bench had to consider (i) whether transactions in derivatives are a “speculative transaction” u/s 43 (5) and if so (ii) whether clause (d) of s. 43 (5) is clarificatory and retrospective in nature. HELD, deciding against the assessee:

 

(i) A ‘derivative’ is a security representing the value of the underlying stocks and shares and must be given the same treatment as that given to the stocks and shares. Also, s. 43 (5) uses the term “commodity” in a wide sense and covers ‘derivatives’. Further, the fact that s. 43(5)(d) exempts certain derivatives from the ambit of the definition of ‘speculative transaction’ shows that they would otherwise have come within that term as otherwise the amendment would be redundant.

 

(ii) Clause (d) of s. 43(5) cannot be held to be clarificatory because it does not exempt all transactions in derivatives but only the ‘eligible transactions’ on ‘recognized stock exchanges’. Rules 6DDA & 6DDB which deal with ‘recognized stock exchanges’ were inserted w.e.f. 1.7.2005. Consequently, it applies only to AY 2006-2007 & onwards.

 

Note: The decisions in SSKI Investors 113 TTJ 511 (Mum), RBK Securities 118 TTJ 465 (Mum), P. S. Kapur 120 TTJ 422 (Jp) and others are impliedly overruled.

Related Judgements

  1. ITO vs. Daga Capital (ITAT Mumbai – Special Bench) (1.7MB) 

    The words “in relation to” in s. 14A encompass not only the direct expense but also the indirect expense which has any relation to the exempt income. The argument that the words contemplate a “direct and immediate connection” between the expenditure and the exempt income cannot be accepted. Accordingly,…

  2. GE Capital Services vs. DCIT (ITAT Delhi) 

    Although at the time of hearing, the initial impression was to write a reference to the President for constituting a larger Bench the fact that an appeal has been filed in the Bombay and Delhi High Courts against Daga Capital mean that (as per the decision of the President…

  3. CWT vs. Value Capital Services (Delhi High Court) 

    In a case where it is alleged that persons contributing share application moneys are bogus, it is quite obvious that is very difficult for the assessee-company to show the creditworthiness of strangers. If the Revenue has any doubt with regard to their ability to make the investment, their returns…

One Response to “Shree Capital Services vs. ACIT (ITAT Kolkota Special Bench)”

  1. archives » CIT vs. Bharat R. Ruia (Bombay High Court)» Latest unreported judgements Says:

    [...] Shree Capital Services vs. ACIT (ITAT Kolkota Special Bench) is impliedly [...]