← All Phrases

“Section 43(5)(a)”

Section References (mined)Section 43Section 43(5)(a)14 judgments

A2Z MAINTENANCE & ENGINEERING SERVICES LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, FARIDABAD

In the result, this ground of appeal is allowed

ITA 3504/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.3504/Del/2016 (Assessment Year 2010-11)

Section 132(4)Section 153A

commodities in which assessee is neither manufacturer nor trader thus these are purely fallen in the category of speculation transactions as per section 43(5) of the Act. He prayed accordingly. 10. Heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. It is admitted fact that assessee ... Revenue submitted that these transactions must be regarded as speculative transactions, in view of the definition of speculative transaction set out in Section 43(5) of the Act, That provision defines speculative transaction as one for the purchase or sale of any commodity, including stocks and shares, which is periodically

A2Z MAINTENANCE & ENGINEERING SERVICES LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, FARIDABAD

In the result, this ground of appeal is allowed

ITA 3503/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.3504/Del/2016 (Assessment Year 2010-11)

Section 132(4)Section 153A

commodities in which assessee is neither manufacturer nor trader thus these are purely fallen in the category of speculation transactions as per section 43(5) of the Act. He prayed accordingly. 10. Heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. It is admitted fact that assessee ... Revenue submitted that these transactions must be regarded as speculative transactions, in view of the definition of speculative transaction set out in Section 43(5) of the Act, That provision defines speculative transaction as one for the purchase or sale of any commodity, including stocks and shares, which is periodically

M/S DCIT, FARIDABAD vs. M/S A2Z MAINTENANCE AND ENGG. SERVICES LTD.,, GURGAON

In the result, this ground of appeal is allowed

ITA 3414/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.3504/Del/2016 (Assessment Year 2010-11)

Section 132(4)Section 153A

commodities in which assessee is neither manufacturer nor trader thus these are purely fallen in the category of speculation transactions as per section 43(5) of the Act. He prayed accordingly. 10. Heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. It is admitted fact that assessee ... Revenue submitted that these transactions must be regarded as speculative transactions, in view of the definition of speculative transaction set out in Section 43(5) of the Act, That provision defines speculative transaction as one for the purchase or sale of any commodity, including stocks and shares, which is periodically

DCIT, CIRCLE- 21(1), NEW DELHI vs. RELIGARE COMTRADE LTD., NEW DELHI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5721/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Ms Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2012-13 Dcit, Vs M/S Religare Comtrade Ltd Circle-21(1), (Formerly Known As Religare New Delhi. Bullion Ltd.), D-3, District Centre, Saket, New Delhi – 110 017. Pan: Aaecr8405P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rohit Jain, Advocate & Ms Somya Jain, Ca Revenue By : Shri Sunil Yadav, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 03.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.05.2025 Order Per Annapurna Gupta, Am: The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Department Against Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-36, New Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As Cit(A)) Under Section 250 (6) Of The Income Tax Act 1961(Hereinafter Referred To As “Act”) Pertaining To Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. Grounds No.1 & 2 Raised By The Revenue Relate To The Same Issue Of Loss Incurred On Account Of Trading In Gold Derivatives Which Was Disallowed By The Ao Treating It As Speculative In Nature, In Terms Of Its Definition U/S 43(5) Of The Act, Which, However, Was Allowed By The Ld.Cit(A). The Said Grounds Read As Under:-

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Sunil Yadav, CIT-DR
Section 250Section 43(5)Section 43(5)(a)

erred in fact that the assessee has done trading in gold derivative on MCX which falls under the provision of section 43(5)(a) which was introduced in the act w.e.f. 01.04.2014 and was not applicable to F.Y. 2011-12 relevant to A.Y. 2012-13.” 3. The facts relating ... respect of his contracts for actual delivery of goods as per the exclusion to the definition of speculative transaction in proviso (a) to section 43(5) of the Act. The ld.CIT(A), however, found merit in the contention of the assessee and held that the loss incurred was on account

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. M/S CHOLAMANDALAM INVESTMENT & FINANCE COMPANY LTD, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 2836/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Mr. Ajith Kumar Jain CA & Mr. Kunal Shah, CAFor Respondent: Mr. R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT &
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 43(5)

learned AO has erred in disallowing a sum of INR 6.27,10,303 treating as 'speculative' in nature as laid down under section 43(5) of the Act. 1.2 On the facts and circumstances of the case, and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) and the learned ... learned AO has erred in construing that in absence of actual delivery, the transaction shall be 'speculative' covered under section 43(5) of the Act. 1.4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred in construing that the transaction under

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. M/S CHOLAMANDALAM INVESTMENT AND FINANCE COMPANY LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 2835/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Apr 2025AY 2014-15
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 43(5)

case, and in law, the Hon'ble\nCIT(A) has erred in construing that the transaction under consideration\nis a commodity asper section 43(5) of the Act and disregarded the\ndecision of Hon'ble jurisdictional Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in\nrespect of this issue.\n1.5.On the facts ... nspeculative in nature.\n:-7-:\nITA. Nos:2613,2732,2820,\n2835&2836/Chny/2024\n•\nAdditionally, the transaction is not covered under the exceptions\nof section 43(5), i.e., Section 43(5)(a) and 43(5)(d) of the Act,\nhence it is considered speculative in nature.\nAs per Section 43(5

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. CHOLAMANDALAM INVESTMENT AND FINANCE COMPANY LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 2820/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Mr. Ajith Kumar Jain CA & Mr. Kunal Shah, CAFor Respondent: Mr. R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT &
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 43(5)

learned AO has erred in disallowing a sum of INR 6.27,10,303 treating as 'speculative' in nature as laid down under section 43(5) of the Act. 1.2 On the facts and circumstances of the case, and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) and the learned ... learned AO has erred in construing that in absence of actual delivery, the transaction shall be 'speculative' covered under section 43(5) of the Act. 1.4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred in construing that the transaction under

CHOLAMANDALAM INVESTMENT AND FIANANCE CO. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(1), CHENNAI

ITA 2732/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Apr 2025AY 2014-15
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 43(5)

case, and in law, the Hon'ble\nCIT(A) has erred in construing that the transaction under consideration\nis a commodity asper section 43(5) of the Act and disregarded the\ndecision of Hon'ble jurisdictional Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in\nrespect of this issue.\n1.5.On the facts ... actual delivery of foreign exchange loss, and such loss is\nspeculative in nature.\nAdditionally, the transaction is not covered under the exceptions\nof section 43(5), i.e., Section 43(5)(a) and 43(5)(d) of the Act,\nhence it is considered speculative in nature.\nAs per Section 43(5

CHOLAMANDALAM INVESTMENT AND FINANCE COMPANY LIMITED,CHENNAI, TAMIL NADU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (DCIT), CHENNAI-1, CHENNAI, TAMIL NADU

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 2613/CHNY/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Apr 2025AY 2013-2014
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 43(5)

case, and in law, the Hon'ble\nCIT(A) has erred in construing that the transaction under consideration\nis a commodity asper section 43(5) of the Act and disregarded the\ndecision of Hon'ble jurisdictional Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in\nrespect of this issue.\n1.5.On the facts ... nspeculative in nature.\n:-6-:\nITA. Nos:2613,2732,2820,\n2835&2836/Chny/2024\n•\nAdditionally, the transaction is not covered under the exceptions\nof section 43(5), i.e., Section 43(5)(a) and 43(5)(d) of the Act,\nhence it is considered speculative in nature.\nAs per Section 43(5

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

AMBICAA SALES CORPORATION ,BENGALURU vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX BENGALURU - 5, BENGALURU

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

ITA 726/BANG/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Jan 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Balram R. Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 43

ledger for profits from MCX and loss from MCX has been furnished. Regarding the allowability of such loss, reliance has been placed upon Section 43(5)(d) of the IT Act, 1961. Further, it has been submitted that as per Notification No.46/2009, dated 22.05.2009, MCX has been including ... incurred. The AO has allowed such loss on the explanation of the assessee that transactions done on MCX are not speculative as per section 43(5)(d) r.w. Notification No.46/2009 dated 22.05.2009. The ld. Pr.CIT observed section 43(5)(d) is applicable to trading in derivatives and admittedly the assessee