← All Phrases

“Section 43(5)”

Section References (mined)Section 43Section 43(5)238 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 43(5) is CIT v. Woodward Governor India Pvt. Ltd. (312 ITR 254), cited in 968 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 43(5)

CIT v. Woodward Governor India Pvt. Ltd.
312 ITR 254 · 2009 · Supreme Court
968
citing judgments

Foreign exchange fluctuations, whether gains or losses, are inextricably linked to the underlying business transaction and must be accounted for under the mercantile system. The Supreme Court also affirmed the standard accounting principle of valuing stock at cost or net realisable value, whichever is lower.

Brooke Bond India Ltd. v. CIT
225 ITR 798 · 1997 · Supreme Court
228
citing judgments

Expenditure incurred for increasing a company's share capital or expanding its capital base, such as expenses related to the issue of shares, constitutes capital expenditure. Such expenses are not deductible as revenue expenditure under Section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, even if they incidentally benefit the business.

DCIT v. Reliance Industries Ltd.
88 ITD 273 · 2004 · ITAT
169
citing judgments

Interest, sales tax, and purchase tax subsidies received by an assessee are generally considered capital receipts, not revenue income, for income tax purposes.

Punjab State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. v. CIT
225 ITR 792 · 1997 · Supreme Court
158
citing judgments

Expenditure incurred for increasing a company's share capital, such as expenses related to issuing shares or an initial public offering (IPO), is capital expenditure. Such expenses are not allowable as a revenue deduction under Section 37, even if they incidentally benefit the business, because they result in an increase in capital.

CIT v. Chaphalkar Brothers
400 ITR 279 · 2018 · Supreme Court
136
citing judgments

A subsidy is classified as a capital receipt if its object is to enable the assessee to set up or expand a new or existing unit. Conversely, it is a revenue receipt if its purpose is to help the assessee run the business more profitably.

CIT v. Rittal India (P) Limited
380 ITR 423 · 2016 · High Court
121
citing judgments

Additional depreciation is allowable under section 32(1)(iia) for new machinery or plant even when put to use for less than 180 days, with the unabsorbed balance available for claim in the subsequent year.

CIT v. Badridas Gauridu (P) Ltd.
261 ITR 256 · 2003 · High Court
114
citing judgments

Losses incurred from foreign exchange forward contracts or derivatives, entered into to hedge currency fluctuations in the course of regular business like exports, are treated as business losses and not as speculative transactions under Section 43(5). Such contracts, when incidental to business and cover exchange rate risks, constitute a business activity.

CIT v. Oswal Agro Mills Ltd.
341 ITR 467 · 2012 · High Court
108
citing judgments

The Legislature abolished terminal depreciation under section 32(1)(iii) and the taxing of balancing charge under section 41(2), replacing these provisions with the requirement to reduce sale proceeds of depreciable assets from the block of assets.

Judgments citing Section 43(5)

M/S. Coastal Energy Private Limited Represented by Liquidator, Chennai vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle-1 (2), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for the assessment year 2008-09 is dismissed and appeals filed by the assessee for the assessment years 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-

ITA 1364/CHNY/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Oct 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 1363/Chny/2023 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 Assistant Commissioner Of Coastal Energy Private Limited Income Tax, Central Circle -1(1) V. (Under Official Liquidator), No.46, M.G. Road, Old No.22, New No.28, Menod Nungambakkam, Street, Purasawakkam, Chennai – 600 034. Chennai – 600 007. [Pan: Aaacc-4160-A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 1364, 1365 & 1366/Chny/2023 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Coastal Energy Private Limited Deputy Commissioner Of Income (Under Official Liquidator), V. Tax, Old No.22, New No.28, Menod Corporate Circle -1(2), Chennai. Street, Purasawakkam, (Now Assessed By Assistant Chennai – 600 007. Commissioner Of Income, [Pan: Aaacc-4160-A] Central Circle -1(1), Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri. B. Ramakrishnan, Fca Assessee By Department By : Shri. A. Sasikumar, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11.09.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 25.10.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

For Respondent: Shri. A. Sasikumar, CIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

were not hedging transactions but the same were speculative and therefore the assessee's case is not covered by proviso to (a) to section 43(5) of the Act. The AO has further held that the finding rendered in the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case ... underlying security permitted to be traded on the stock exchange and settled otherwise than by actual delivery would be speculative transactions under Section 43(5) of the Act, would be apply to the facts of assessee's case and disallowed the same. 10.5 On the other hand, the assessee submitted

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Coastal Energy Private Limited (Under Official Liquidator), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for the assessment year 2008-09 is dismissed and appeals filed by the assessee for the assessment years 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-

ITA 1363/CHNY/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Oct 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 1363/Chny/2023 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 Assistant Commissioner Of Coastal Energy Private Limited Income Tax, Central Circle -1(1) V. (Under Official Liquidator), No.46, M.G. Road, Old No.22, New No.28, Menod Nungambakkam, Street, Purasawakkam, Chennai – 600 034. Chennai – 600 007. [Pan: Aaacc-4160-A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 1364, 1365 & 1366/Chny/2023 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Coastal Energy Private Limited Deputy Commissioner Of Income (Under Official Liquidator), V. Tax, Old No.22, New No.28, Menod Corporate Circle -1(2), Chennai. Street, Purasawakkam, (Now Assessed By Assistant Chennai – 600 007. Commissioner Of Income, [Pan: Aaacc-4160-A] Central Circle -1(1), Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri. B. Ramakrishnan, Fca Assessee By Department By : Shri. A. Sasikumar, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11.09.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 25.10.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

For Respondent: Shri. A. Sasikumar, CIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

were not hedging transactions but the same were speculative and therefore the assessee's case is not covered by proviso to (a) to section 43(5) of the Act. The AO has further held that the finding rendered in the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case ... underlying security permitted to be traded on the stock exchange and settled otherwise than by actual delivery would be speculative transactions under Section 43(5) of the Act, would be apply to the facts of assessee's case and disallowed the same. 10.5 On the other hand, the assessee submitted

Stephen Fernandes, Udupi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Udupi

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1465/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri N. Ramesh, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 43(5)Section 44A

Appellant. 4. The Learned Commissioner of Income-Tax(Appeals)- NFAC has erred by completely overlooking the clause (e) of the Proviso of Section 43(5) of the Income-Tax Act,1961 and Explanation 2 for the purposes of Clause ( e ) of the Proviso of Section 43(5 ... documents which are listed by the AO in page 3 of his order. The assessee also filed explanation and the AO referring to section 43(5) and 73(1) of the Act assessed total income at Rs.41,44,319. Aggrieved from the above order, the assessee filed appeal before

Dy.Comm. of Income-Tax 5(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Daystar Enterprises Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the Cross objection filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1572/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang, Hon‟Ble & Shri B.R. Baskaran, Hon‟Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal and Shri Akash KumarFor Respondent: Ms. Mahita Nair, Sr.DR
Section 43(5)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “D”, MUMBAI BEFORE JUSTICE (RETD.) SHRI C.V. BHADANG, HON‟BLE PRESIDENT AND

Khanna Industrial Pipes Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 12 3 1 Mumbai, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical

ITA 4036/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra SinghFor Respondent: ShriManoj Kumar Sinha, Sr. AR
Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 250

business. The Tribunal has recorded a categorical finding to this effect in its order. The Assessing Officer has not considered these facts. Under section 43(5) of the Income-tax Act, Khanna Industrial Pipes Pvt. Ltd. "speculative transaction" has been defined to mean a transaction in which a contract ... these transactions, being in the nature of hedging transactions, would fall under the exempted category of speculative transactions provided in proviso (a) to section 43(5) of the Act. Therefore, we find no basis in the findings of the lower authorities on this issue and the same are set aside

Subros Limited, Delhi vs. DCIT Circle 22(2), Delhi

In the result, the appeal being ITA No

ITA 3579/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Oct 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Salil Agarwal, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Kirti Sankratyayan, Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 35

exchange fluctuations on forward contracts are not allowable under section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act and covered as hedging transactions under section 43(5)(a) of the Act or should be disallowed as speculation losses under section 43(5) of the Act in view of the CBDT Instruction ... loss on account of Forward Contracts is allowable under section 37(1) of the Act and is covered as a hedging transaction under section 43(5)(a) of the Act. The Revenue contends that the said loss is required to be disallowed as a speculative loss in terms

Subros Limited, Delhi vs. DCIT Circle 24(2) New Delhi, Delhi

In the result, the appeal being ITA No

ITA 3578/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Salil Agarwal, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Kirti Sankratyayan, Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 35

exchange fluctuations on forward contracts are not allowable under section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act and covered as hedging transactions under section 43(5)(a) of the Act or should be disallowed as speculation losses under section 43(5) of the Act in view of the CBDT Instruction ... loss on account of Forward Contracts is allowable under section 37(1) of the Act and is covered as a hedging transaction under section 43(5)(a) of the Act. The Revenue contends that the said loss is required to be disallowed as a speculative loss in terms

Subros Limited, Delhi vs. JCIT Range 24 New Delhi, Delhi

In the result, the appeal being ITA No

ITA 3577/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Salil Agarwal, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Kirti Sankratyayan, Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 35

exchange fluctuations on forward contracts are not allowable under section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act and covered as hedging transactions under section 43(5)(a) of the Act or should be disallowed as speculation losses under section 43(5) of the Act in view of the CBDT Instruction ... loss on account of Forward Contracts is allowable under section 37(1) of the Act and is covered as a hedging transaction under section 43(5)(a) of the Act. The Revenue contends that the said loss is required to be disallowed as a speculative loss in terms

Subros Limited, Delhi vs. Addl CIT Rang 24 New Delhi, Delhi

In the result, the appeal being ITA No

ITA 3576/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Salil Agarwal, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Kirti Sankratyayan, Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 35

exchange fluctuations on forward contracts are not allowable under section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act and covered as hedging transactions under section 43(5)(a) of the Act or should be disallowed as speculation losses under section 43(5) of the Act in view of the CBDT Instruction ... loss on account of Forward Contracts is allowable under section 37(1) of the Act and is covered as a hedging transaction under section 43(5)(a) of the Act. The Revenue contends that the said loss is required to be disallowed as a speculative loss in terms

Bhagwati Pules, Akola vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Akola

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 86/NAG/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur20 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

For Appellant: Shri Shubham JainFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 143(1)Section 144ASection 43(5)

same day, but the only contention of the assessee is that these transactions do not fall within the definition of speculative transaction under section 43(5) of the Act. The assessee filed a detailed and elaborated reply on 16/02/2016. However, the Assessing Officer held that the reply filed ... treating the transaction as speculative, it may be mentioned that the assessee's case is not covered by this sub- clause(a) of section 43(5) of the I.T. Act. Sub-clause(a) of section 43(5) of the I.T. Act excludes only such transactions as entered into

Tara Soni, Dausa vs. ITO Ward, Dausa

In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant stands allowed with no orders as to cost

ITA 13/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Sept 2024AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 69ASection 69C

purchase as well as sale. Attention is drawn to the fact that in the year 2005, an amendment was brought about in section 43(5) of Income Tax Act through insertion of clause (d) wherein derivative transactions carried out through recognized stock exchange were not henceforth considered to be speculative

Premcem Gums Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT 14(2)(2), Mumbai

Accordingly, Ground No. 3 raised by the Appellant is dismissed

ITA 633/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Kirit SanghviFor Respondent: Shri HM Bhatt/Shri Raj Singh Meel
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viii)

have been settled otherwise than by actual delivery of goods. Thus, it is a case of business transactions of speculative nature covered by section 43(5) of the Act. As this is the case of 4 Assessment Year 2014-15 speculative transaction, the bad debt

Trade City Commodities Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-4(1), Kolkata.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 678/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Pradip Kumar Choubey & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 143(3)Section 43(5)

authorities below and the averments of ld. A/R/ld. D/R. To appreciate the change in law with effect from 01.04.2014 the amended provision of Section 43(5) of the Act needs to be extracted for ready reference: “43(5)(e)—an eligible transaction in respect of trading in commodity derivatives carried

Swan Petrchemicals Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. NFAC Delhi, Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 496/IND/2023[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Indore16 Jul 2024AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S. Swan Petrochemicals Dcit (Central), Pvt.Ltd, Indore Unit No.308 Acme Plaza, Opp. Sangam Cinema, Vs. Andheri Kurlka, Maharashtra (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aabcr9592C Assessee By Shri Ajay Tulsiyan & Ms. Ruchira Singhal, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 22.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 16.07.2024 O R D E R

Section 142(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 43(5)

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, इंदौर "यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI VIJAY

Agarwal Sponge & Energy Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

The appeal are dismissed

ITA 59/HYD/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Jun 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.59/Hyd/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2010-11) M/S. Agarwal Sponge & Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Energy (P) Ltd., Circle 1(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aaeca8680P (Respondent) (Appellant) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri Sunil Kumar Jain, Ca रधजस्‍व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Ms. Sheetal Sarin, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 27/05/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 28/06/2024 आदेश / Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M: This Appeal Is Filed By Agarwal Sponge & Energy (P) Ltd. (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Hyderabad (“Ld.Cit(A)”) Dated 31.08.2017 For A.Y.2010-11. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Concise Grounds: "1. The Order Of The Learned Cit(A) Dated 31/8/2017 Is Contrary To Law & Facts.

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Jain, CAFor Respondent: : Ms. Sheetal Sarin, DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 234ASection 43

transaction entered into by the assessee to safeguard the rates in future cannot be treated as speculative as per the proviso (a) to section 43(5) of the Act. Page 4 However, the Ld. AO without appreciating the facts of the assessee treated the transaction as speculative and disallowed ... assessee. b) In alternative argument the Ld. AR submitted that the transaction undertaken by the assessee are covered under the proviso (e) of section 43(5) of the Act and hence it cannot be treated as speculative transaction. Therefore, the Ld. AR requested the Bench to allow the claim

Simbhaoli Sugars Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed ex-parte

ITA 5181/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jun 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 2Section 250Section 43Section 43(5)

either for currency conversion or hedged for export recoverable in revenue field and thus causing a Revenue loss. The AO however referred to Section 43(5) of the Act and observed that the forex derivative contracts are not covered in the proviso to Section 43(5) and consequently falls within ... definition of Section 43(5) of the Act. The AO accordingly treated the aforesaid amount as ‘speculative loss’ in the hands of the assessee-company. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A). 3 I.T.A. No.3840/Del/2015 The CIT(A) also endorsed the action of the AO as under

Krishna Kumar Jalan, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir. 28, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 354/KOL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev S. Verma, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Arup Chatterjee, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 43(5)

authorities and the same is also supported by the various details filed by the assessee including the details of security transaction tax paid. Section 43(5) of the Act has a direct bearing on this issue of claim of loss from transactions of F&O carried out on the recognised ... 354/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Krishna Kumar Jalan 5. Now from perusal of the above Section, I notice that exceptions mentioned in Section 43(5) of the Act are not to be considered as speculative transaction. The alleged loss of Rs.16,91,235/- incurred by the assessee falls under

Titan Company Limited 9Earstwhile Known As Titan Industries Limited), Krishnagiri vs. ACIT Ltu 1, Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 518/CHNY/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 May 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Shri T. Surya Narayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar, CIT
Section 143(3)

considered on revenue account, the same are unascertained liability. Therefore, he held that this being speculative loss, is covered by the provisions of section 43(5)(d) of the Act and hence, not allowable. Accordingly, the AO disallowed the marked to market loss claimed by assessee at Rs.2

Titan Company Limited 9Earstwhile Known As Titan Industries Limited), Krishnagiri vs. ACIT Ltu 1, Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 507/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Shri T. Surya Narayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar, CIT
Section 143(3)

considered on revenue account, the same are unascertained liability. Therefore, he held that this being speculative loss, is covered by the provisions of section 43(5)(d) of the Act and hence, not allowable. Accordingly, the AO disallowed the marked to market loss claimed by assessee at Rs.2

Titan Company Limited 9Earstwhile Known As Titan Industries Limited), Krishnagiri vs. ACIT Ltu 1, Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 506/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Shri T. Surya Narayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar, CIT
Section 143(3)

considered on revenue account, the same are unascertained liability. Therefore, he held that this being speculative loss, is covered by the provisions of section 43(5)(d) of the Act and hence, not allowable. Accordingly, the AO disallowed the marked to market loss claimed by assessee at Rs.2