M/S RENAATUS PROJECTS P LTD,ERODE vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, COIMBATORE
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not adjudicated the assessee's specific plea that the transactions fell under Section 43(5)(d). Therefore, the issue was remitted back to the CIT(A) for proper adjudication.
What were the facts?
The assessee claimed a loss of Rs. 29,82,328/- from commodity derivative transactions as an expenditure. The AO disallowed this claim, stating that commodities are not covered by the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956, and thus not by Section 43(5)(d) of the Income Tax Act.
What were the issues?
Whether commodity derivative transactions are covered under Section 43(5)(d) of the Income Tax Act and thus not taxable as speculative income.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 43(5)(d),Section 43(5)(e)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH, CHENNAI
Before: SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY & SHRI S. JAYARAMAN
आदेश/ O R D E R
PER S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
The assessee filed this appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 18, Chennai in dated 06.03.2018 for the assessment year 2013-14.
:-2-: ITA No: 1705/Chny/2018
M/s. Renaatus Projects P. Ltd., the assessee, incurred loss of Rs. 29,82,328/- from various derivative transactions carried out in commodities on the MCX (one of the commodity stock exchange) and claimed it as an expenditure for the assessment year 2013-14. While making the assessment u/s. 143(3), the AO disallowed the assessee’s claim observing that commodities are not covered by the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956. Therefore, they are not covered by the provisions of section 43(5)(d) of the Income Tax Act.
Aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved against that order, the assessee filed this appeal.
The case was heard through video conferencing. The Ld. AR inviting our attention to the order of the Ld. CIT(A), wherein the additional grounds/submissions filed by the assessee are extracted , submitted that the assessee’s transactions by way of commodity derivatives through recognised stock exchange was not to be taxed as speculative income up to the assessment year 2013-14 in view of the section 43(5)(d) of the Income Tax Act. Since, the subject matter of appeal is related to AY 2013-14, clause (e) of section 43(5) is not applicable. However, the Ld. CIT (A) without adjudicating this specific aspect, invoking S43(5)(e) dismissed the appeal and hence the AR pleaded that this issue may be remitted back to the Ld. CIT(A) for an adjudication as to whether the assessee’s transaction is covered u/s. 43(5)(d) or not as was :-3-: ITA No: 1705/Chny/2018 pleaded in its additional grounds before the Ld. CIT(A). Per contra, the Ld. DR supported the orders of the lower authorities.
We heard the rival submissions. We find that the assessee has in the additional grounds specifically pleaded before the Ld. CIT(A) that the impugned transactions undertaken during the period relevant to the assessment year 2013-14 is falling within the scope of section 43(5)(d) and hence it cannot be taxed as a speculative income. We find that the Ld. CIT (A) has not adjudicated this matter. Therefore, we remit this issue back to the Ld. CIT (A) for giving due opportunity to the assessee and decide the specific grounds taken by the assessee in accordance with law.
In the result, the assessee’s appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on 21st June, 2021 at Chennai.
More judgments on Section 43(5)(d)
- Ridhi Vincom Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs I.T.O., Ward - 4(1), KolkataITA 947/KOL/2025[2013-2014]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2025AY 2013-2014
- Kamal Kant, Delhi vs ITO, Ward-54(1), DelhiITA 3594/DEL/2023[2009-10]Status: Disposed17 Sept 2025AY 2009-10
- Manoj Kumar Pandey, Katni vs Income Tax Officer -3, KatniITA 122/JAB/2023[2009-10]Status: Heard8 Jan 2025AY 2009-10
- Ganesh Ores Private Limited, Civil… vs Asst Commissioner of Income Tax, Rourkela…ITA 45/CTK/2024[2016-17]Status: Heard11 Jul 2024AY 2016-17
- Ganesh Ores Private Limited, Civil Township… vs Asst Commissioner of Income Tax, Rourkela…ITA 44/CTK/2024[2015-16]Status: Heard11 Jul 2024AY 2015-16
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Shivam Tiles House vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- Imtiyaz Shaikh Z Chorlekar vs. Salman ShaikhBombay · 21 Oct 2026
- Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University Thr Its Registrar Prashant S Amrutkar vs. Union Of INDIA Thr The Secretary And OthersBombay · 19 Oct 2026
- Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University Thr Registrar Prashant S Amrutkar vs. Union Of INDIA Thr Secretary And OthersBombay · 19 Oct 2026
- Vinishma Technologies Private Limited vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026