Assessee is a dealer in gold and silver bullion. It suffered loss through MCX transactions for hedging its stock-in-trade and claimed allowance of same. Assessing Officer accepted that loss claimed by assessee from hedging its stock through MCX transactions was not a speculative loss and allowed same for setting off against other income PCIT held that MCX transactions would fall under clause (a) of section 43(5) and Assessing Officer had accepted claim of assessee under clause (d) of section 43(5) and accordingly, he set aside assessment order and directed AO to make fresh assessment. Tribunal held that since from provisions of section 43(5) it was clear that even according to PCIT assessee’s case of MCX transactions for hedging loss falling under clause (a) of section 43(5) is not covered under speculative transaction and MCX transactions were done in normal course of business of assessee, loss suffered was business loss of assessee and thus, order of Assessing Officer allowing loss is not erroneous and prejudicial to interests of revenue. (AY. 2014-15)
Ambicaa Sales Corporation. v. PCIT (2024) 205 ITD 412 (Bang) (Trib.)
S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Dealer in gold-Loss through MCX transactions for hedging its stock-in-trade-Loss is business loss-Not speculative-Revision is not valid.[S. 28(i)) 43(5)(d), 143(3)]