Held that the Assessing Officer had erred in treating the transaction of purchase and sale as commodity derivative  transactions and a speculative transaction not fitting into exception provided in clause (e) of the proviso to section 43(5) of the Act. The Assessing Officer erred in interpreting the proviso enacted to give different meaning for certain types of contracts listed in clauses (a) to (e) which otherwise would be treated as speculative transaction  in terms of section 43(5) of the Act. The proviso to section 43(5) of the Act was meant to exclude certain types of transactions from the definition of speculative transaction by treating them as non-speculative. It therefore follows that for any transaction to be treated as deemed/non-deemed speculative transaction, it has to first fit into the definition of speculative transaction as defined in section 43(5) of the Act before the proviso. Since a contract of purchase or sale itself does not fall into definition of speculative transaction” as they were not settled, the question does not arise at all of treating transaction as commodity derivative not qualifying or fitting into clause (e) of the proviso to section 43(5) of the Act. Accordingly the  Loss on purchase of  commodities on National Spot Exchange for which delivery receipts issued but not delivered, allowable as business loss. n Unsettled contract  of purchase or sale is not speculative transaction. (AY. 2014-15, 2016-17)