MESERS P.D SEKHSARIA TRADING COMPANY,BATHINDA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, BATHINDA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the transactions in agricultural commodity derivatives should not be treated as speculative, even if CTT was not paid, due to a curative amendment. The loss is allowed to be set off against business income.
What were the facts?
The assessee claimed a loss of Rs. 4,69,47,808/- from trading in commodity derivatives. The Assessing Officer treated these transactions as speculative because the exchange (NCDEX) was recognized after the transaction dates and Commodity Transaction Tax (CTT) was not paid.
What were the issues?
Whether losses from trading in agricultural commodity derivatives are speculative if CTT was not paid and the exchange was recognized later. Whether a subsequent curative amendment to Section 43(5) is retrospective.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(6)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- Allied Motors (P) Ltd. v. CIT398 citing224 ITR 677 · 1997 · SC · Read judgment
- CIT v. Ansal Land Mark Township (P) Ltd.369 citing377 ITR 635 · 2015 · HC · Read judgment
- CIT v. Scindia\nSteam Navigation Co. Ltd.56 citing42 ITR 589 · 1961 · SC
- CIT v. Madho Prasad Jatia16 citing105 ITR 179 · 1976 · SC
- CIT v. NASA Finlease Pvt. Ltd.5 citing358 ITR 305 · 2013 · HC
- G.K. Anand Bros. Buildwell (P.) Ltd. v. ITO4 citing34 SOT 439 · 2009 · ITAT
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR
Before: Sh. N. S. Saini & Sh. N. K. Choudhry
Per N. S. Saini, Accountant Member:
This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of CIT(A), Bathinda dated 26.03.2018. 2. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:
“1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case the addition/disallowance of Rs.4,69,47,808/- made
ITA No. 331/Asr./2018 2 SA
The order continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
More judgments on Section 43(5)
- Kamal Ramprasad Gupta, Mumbai vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle…ITA 3458/MUM/2026[2016-17]Status: Disposed31 Aug 2026AY 2016-17
- The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax… vs Nk Proteins Pvt. LtdTAXAP/449/20254 Aug 2026
- Income Tax Officer, Ward-41(3)(1), Mumbai vs Ajit H Loladiya HUF, MumbaiITA 987/MUM/2026[2012-13]Status: Disposed10 Jul 2026AY 2012-13
- Raag Vihar Apartments Private Limited… vs DCIT Circle 16(1), C. R. Building, DelhiITA 8774/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: Disposed10 Jul 2026AY 2015-16
- Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai vs Motilal Oswal Financial Services Limited…ITA 7971/MUM/2025[2014]Status: Disposed7 Jul 2026
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Dillip Kumar Behera vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, Mayurbhanj CircleOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Tvl.Dev Construction vs. The Proper OfficerMadras · 15 Oct 2026
- Abbal Dass Arya vs. Commissioner State Goods And Services Tax CommissionerUttarakhand · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S Darbesh Medical Enterprise vs. State Of West Bengal And Ors.Calcutta · 15 Oct 2026
- J M Mhatre Infra PVT. LTD Thr. Authorized Chetan J. Mhatre vs. Union Of INDIA Thr. Secretary Dept. Of Revenue Ministry Of Finance And OrsBombay · 14 Oct 2026