← All Phrases

“speculative transaction”

Losses & Set-offSection 43(5)Section 43(5)255 judgments

The decision most relied on for speculative transaction is CIT v. Badridas Gauridu (P) Ltd. (261 ITR 256), cited in 114 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on speculative transaction

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. Punjab Stainless Steel Industries
364 ITR 144 · 2014 · Supreme Court
59
citing judgments

The Supreme Court holds that ICAI Guidance Notes and accounting methods prescribed by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI) can be relied upon for computing "turnover," especially for tax audit purposes under Section 44AB and for transactions involving shares and derivatives.

CIT v. Soorajmull Nagarmull
129 ITR 169 · 1981 · High Court
55
citing judgments

Losses from foreign exchange forward contracts, when incidental to an assessee's regular business and undertaken to safeguard business interests, are treated as business losses and not speculative losses under section 43(5).

CIT v. Concord Commercial Pvt. Ltd.
95 ITD 117 · 2005 · ITAT
34
citing judgments

The aggregate of business profits and losses from derivative transactions must be worked out before applying the Explanation to Section 73 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. This means that trading of shares and derivative transactions are not considered speculative transactions under Section 43(5) for the purposes of Sections 28 to 41.

CIT v. Darshan Securities (P) Ltd.
341 ITR 556 · 2012 · High Court
27
citing judgments

A company involved in the purchase and sale of shares is deemed to be carrying on a speculative business to the extent of such transactions, unless it falls under an exception to Section 73 of the Income Tax Act.

Pankaj Oil Mills v. CIT
115 ITR 824 · 1978 · High Court
26
citing judgments

Hedging contracts related to raw materials for manufacturers are excluded from speculative transactions under Section 43(5) of the Income Tax Act, even if they involve both sales and purchases and are entered into at different times from the delivery of goods.

CIT v. Trishul Investments Ltd.
305 ITR 434 · 2008 · High Court
26
citing judgments

Interest paid on loans borrowed for the purpose of investment in shares is allowed as part of the cost of acquisition eligible for deduction while computing capital gains under Section 48. The intention of the assessee at the time of acquisition of shares determines the nature of the gain.

Quality Engineering & Software Technologies (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT
52 Taxmann.com 515 · 2014 · ITAT
26
citing judgments

A forward contract entered into to protect against foreign currency fluctuations on consideration receivable for exports is not a speculative transaction, and provisions for losses on such derivative contracts are allowable expenditures.

Judgments citing speculative transaction

Integra Software Services P. Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Pondicherry

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 736/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjunraj (CA) for Shri. S. Sridhar (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri R. Bhoopathi (JCIT) / Shri. Kumar Ajeet Ld. CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 195Section 40Section 43(5)Section 9(1)(vii)Section 92C

safeguard against losses that could arise due to foreign exchange fluctuations on account of receivables from export. These transactions could not be termed as speculative transaction u/s 43(5). However, rejecting the same, Ld. DRP confirmed the stand of Ld. AO. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before

Ab Mauri India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 1(1), Chennai

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2091/CHNY/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri S.P. Chidambaram (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan (Addl. CIT) –Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 40

revenue account. 3.3 The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that MTM losses incurred on forward contracts taken on receivables/ payables is not a speculative transaction. 3.4 The CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that loss on account of MTM represents a existing contract as on the reporting date

Sotc Travel Services P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 3(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assesse is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 3656/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawal &For Respondent: Shri Chetan M. Kacha
Section 14Section 14ASection 250Section 254(1)Section 40

would not by itself determine whether the activity was a part of the Respondent-assessee's regular business transaction or it was a speculative transaction. On present facts, it was never the Revenue's contention that SOTC Travel Services Private Ltd. ITA No.3656/Mum./2016 the transaction was speculative but only

M/S Bosch Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Ltu Circle-1, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1629/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2013-14 Bosch Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Hosur Road, Adugodi, Of Income Tax, Ltu, Bangalore – 560 030. Circle 1, Pan: Aaacm 9840P Bangalore. Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Percy Pardiwala, Advocate Respondent By : Shri V S Chakrapani, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 01.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.09.2022 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S.2. This Appeal Is Against The Order Of The Cit(Appeals), Bangalore-9, Bangalore Dated 31.3.2018 For The Assessment Year 2013- 14. 3. The Assessee Raised Grounds Pertaining To The Following Issues:- Deduction U/S. 35(2Ab) Computed On Net Expenditure As Opposed To Gross Expenditure Disallowance Of Provision For Bad & Doubtful Debts I) Disallowance Of Provision For Long Term Service Award Disallowance Of Expenditure U/S. 14A Of The Act Ii) Page 2 Of 67

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V S Chakrapani, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 14ASection 35Section 37Section 43BSection 80J

disallowing the 'mark to market losses' incurred by the Appellant on the basis that the same were notional and contingent in nature and were speculative transactions in terms of Section 43(5) of the Act. 12.2 That the CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the Appellant entered into the forward

DCIT, CC- 7(1), Mumbai vs. Classic Shares and Stock Broking Services Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 4679/MUM/2018[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Sept 2022AY 2002-03
For Appellant: Shri Rajiv KhandelwalFor Respondent: Dr. P. Daniel
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 254Section 263Section 73

under:- “ 11. As regards the non-delivery based loss, the ld. counsel for the assessee has invited our attention to the details of speculative transaction of the assessee placed at page 14 to 15 of the paper book which show that the loss was incurred during four settlement periods only

Asha Devi, Bangalore vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore-2, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 371/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Deva Rathna Kumar, CIT(DR)(ITAT)
Section 143(3)Section 263

assessee was income from speculation and interest on investments stated that neither the assessee was able to produce the details and vouchers of the speculative transactions made during the accounting year nor was there evidence regarding the interest received by the assessee Page 7 of 9 from different parties

M/S. Course5 Intelligence Private Limited (Formerly Cross Tab Marketing Services Private Limited), Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 2(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 15/BANG/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Course5 Intelligence Pvt. Ltd., (Formerly Cross Tab Marketing Services The Deputy Pvt. Ltd.) Commissioner Of No. 422, 80 Feet Income Tax, Road, Circle – 2(1)(1), 6Th Block, Vs. Bangalore. Koramangala, Bangalore – 560 095. Pan: Aabcc6525A Appellant Respondent : Shri Padam Chand Khincha, Assessee By Ca : Shri Srinivas Rao Bandaru, Revenue By Jcit Dr Date Of Hearing : 14-07-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 18-08-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 14/10/2019 Passed By Ld.Cit(A)-2, Bangalore For A.Y. 2013-14 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Learned Assessing Officer Had Erred In Passing The Order In The Manner Passed By Him & The Learned Cit (A) Has Erred In Partially Confirming The Same. The Orders Passed Being Bad In Law & Liable To Be Quashed.

For Respondent: Shri Padam Chand Khincha
Section 10ASection 143(2)Section 234B

Page 19 of 26 consideration for export proceeds and that there was an actual contract for sale of marchendise, which cannot be termed as speculative transactions. 5.9 In all the grounds considered and argued by both the sides hereinabove, we note that the issue revolves around allowability of losses

DCIT 14(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Blue Berry Trading Co P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3568/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Aug 2022AY 2011-12
Section 143(3)Section 73

terms of provisions of Section 43(5)(d) of the Act. For the sake of convenience, Section 43(5) (d) is reproduced hereunder:- 5) "speculative transaction" means a transaction in which a contract for the purchase or sale of any commodity, including stocks and shares, is periodically or ultimately settled ... Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956 (42 of 1956) carried out in a recognised stock exchange; shall not be deemed to be a speculative transaction.” 3.7. In our considered opinion, in terms of Section 43(5)(d) of the Act, the loss incurred on futures and options (derivative transactions) would have

DCIT Circle- 1, Thane vs. M/S Everest Industries Ltd, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly

ITA 554/MUM/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh Chaitanya Joshi &For Respondent: Shri Amol Kirtane, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 32(1)(iia)Section 43B

allowable expenditure. The Learned Counsel for the Assessee further submitted that the derivate loss incurred by the assessee cannot be considered as speculative transactions as given in section 43(5) of the Act. The assessee has entered into derivative transactions in respect of foreign currency and there is no purchase

Everest Industrial Ltd., Noida vs. Dy CIT Circle-1, Thane

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly

ITA 7791/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh Chaitanya Joshi &For Respondent: Shri Amol Kirtane, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 32(1)(iia)Section 43B

allowable expenditure. The Learned Counsel for the Assessee further submitted that the derivate loss incurred by the assessee cannot be considered as speculative transactions as given in section 43(5) of the Act. The assessee has entered into derivative transactions in respect of foreign currency and there is no purchase

DCIT 2(3), Mumbai vs. Tech Mahindra P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose, while the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3033/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri H.P. MahajaniFor Respondent: Shri Chandra Vijay
Section 10ASection 250Section 2D

allowing deduction of Rs.47,97,489, being foreign exchange loss incurred by Bangalore non-10A Unit on entering into forward contract as "Speculative Transaction" within the meaning of Section 43(5) of the Act.” 3. In its appeal, Revenue has raised following grounds: "1. On the facts ... Assessing Officer vide order passed under section 143(3) read with section 144C of the Act treated loss on forward contract as a speculative transaction under section 43(5) of the Act and disallowed the same. The Assessing Officer also noted that the contract entered into by the assessee

Azofen P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 9(1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1970/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleazofen Pvt Ltd Vs. Dcit, Range – 9 (1)(2) 37/38, Lk Arcade, Aayakar Bhavan, Marol Naka, Marol, M.K. Road. Andheri Mumbai- 400020. Mumbai-400059. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaca5098F Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By : Smt. Shailja Rai, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 21.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 26.07.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-16, Mumbai Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S 145(3) & 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Shailja Rai, CIT DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 68Section 73

appellant. 6 The CIT (A) has failed to appreciate the facts that (a) loss from derivatives is specifically excluded from the definition of " speculative transaction" and also that (b) loss from trading in shares is on account of amalgamation of business of Easiworks Enterprise Solutions Pvt. Ltd., and accordingly

Dr. R Sridhar, Mysuru vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 691/BANG/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri T. Roumuan Paite, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263oSection 50E

assessee was income from speculation and interest on investments stated that neither the assessee was able to produce the details and vouchers of the speculative transactions made during the accounting year nor was there evidence regarding the interest received by the assessee from different parties on her investments. Notwithstanding these

Axis Cades Aerospace Infrastructure Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Bangalore-1, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 777/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Sheetal Borkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Karanth, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(2)Section 263Section 36(1)(vii)

assessee was income from speculation and interest on investments stated that neither the assessee was able to produce the details and vouchers of the speculative transactions made during the accounting year nor was there evidence regarding the interest received by the assessee from different parties on her investments. Notwithstanding these

V.R.Venugopal, Mandya vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-2(1), Mysore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1686/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. V. R. Venugopal, Acit, Vs. No.11 ‘Emerald Enclave’, Circle – 2(1), Belavadi Hobli, Srirangapatna, Mysuru. Mandya District – 571 606. Pan : Aaypv 2288 H Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. Vageesh Hegde, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Baseganni, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

authorized representative conceded that the AO correctly held that the Proft and Loss A/c pertaining to transfer of share without actual delivery amounted to speculative transactions and therefore the AR was not pressing the grounds taken with reference to the Page 4 of 8 addition of RS.56,32,418/- made ... before the Hon'ble CIT (A) as a representative of the Appellant, Mr. V R Venugopal. Since, the separate statements of speculative and non-speculative transactions could not be produced before the Learned AO as explained in Paragraph 7 above, I believed that an opportunity would be given

Mr. Dhaval R. Ajmera, Mumbai vs. ITO, 17(1)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2746/MUM/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jun 2022AY 2007-08
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148

same as such. 3.3. As regards transactions carried out through Alliance Intermediates and Network Pvt. Ltd., the assessee submitted that it had done only speculative transactions through the said broker wherein the assessee had incurred loss of Rs.33,83,516/- and has not made any purchase of shares through ... explain the same. The assessee duly clarified that the same represents futures and options transactions only which are in the nature of speculative transactions and not purchase of shares made through Alliance Intermediates and Network Pvt. Ltd. The assessee even reconciled each and every transaction mentioned thereon before

DCIT, Cir - 4(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S.Ohm Stock Broker P. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1445/MUM/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bledcit – Circle – 4(2)(1) V. M/S. Ohm Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 642, 6Th Floor 301-A, Poonam Chambers Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road B-Wing, Dr. A.B. Road Mumbai - 400020 Worli, Mumbai -400018 Pan: Aaaco3526E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Department By : Shri M.P. Ahuja

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri M.P. Ahuja
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 43(5)Section 73

Assessing Officer. Further, Assessing Officer disallowed the expenses incurred on such speculation business based on the proportion of turnover, he worked out percentage of speculative transaction @14.68% to the total turnover. Accordingly, he allocated the expenses relating to share trading to the extent of ₹.1,32,66,373/-. Therefore ... that as per section 43(5) of the IT Act In sections 28 to 41 and in this section, unless the context otherwise requires speculative transaction" 25 means a transaction in which a contract25 for the purchase or sale of any commodity25, 5 M/s. Ohm Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd., including

ITO, WD 2(2)(3), Mumbai vs. Plaza Securities Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2472/MUM/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhincome Tax Officer, Vs. M/S Plaza Securities Ltd. Ward-2(2)(3) 8-B, Rajbahadur Motilal Room No. 542, 5 Th Floor, Mansion, 11/43 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Tamarind Street For, Road, Churchgate, Mumbai - 400023 Mumbai – 400 020 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaacp8335L Respondent .. Appellant

For Appellant: N.R. AgarwalFor Respondent: Ms. Vranda U. Matkar
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 43(5)(d)

that an eligible transaction in respect of trading in derivatives of securities carried out on a recognized stock exchange shall not be deemed as speculative transactions. In this regard we have also perused the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Souvenir Developer ... Income Tax Act, 1961 with reference to explanation given to Section 73 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which is applicable to speculative transaction. By virtue of insertion of clause (d) to the proviso to Section 43 (5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the transactions in respect

M/S. Wipro Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 2556/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore23 May 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.2556/Bang/2019 Assessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri S. Ganesh, Sr. ARFor Respondent: Shri T. Roumuan Paite, D.R
Section 143(3)

IT(TP)A No.2556/Bang/2019 M/s. Wipro Limited, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V

Hinduja Finance Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, Range -7(1)(2) (Earlier DCIT 6(1)), Mumbai

In the result, this ground of appeal of assessee is dismissed and order of Ld

ITA 7154/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 May 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalhinduja Finance Ltd. 171, Hinduja House, Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli, Mumbai-400018 Pan: Aagca0533R ...... Appellant Vs. Dy.Cit, Range-7(1)(2) Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. Ruturaj Gurjar Respondent By : Sh. B.K. Bagchi, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 25/03/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 20/05/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Cit (A)’] Vide Order Dated 05.09.2019 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2010- 11. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. On The Facts & The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming: I) The Disallowance Made U/S.14A Of The Income Tax Act At Rs.7, 06,985/- As Against Disallowance Of Rs.2, 52,536/- As Computed By The Appellant. The Disallowance Made Of Rs.4, 54,449/- May Please Be Deleted.

For Appellant: Sh. Ruturaj GurjarFor Respondent: Sh. B.K. Bagchi, CIT-DR
Section 14Section 14A

share prices started falling. I am also not in agreement with the contention of the appellant that all of its transactions in shares are speculative transactions by virtue of provisions of Explanation to section 73 of the IT Act. The appellant is covered by the exceptions provided in that Explanation ... does not reflect credential of business but reflects only the speculative nature of a transaction unlike the earlier transaction. This transaction is naturally a speculative transaction 8 ITA No. 7154/Mum/2019, AY 2010-11 and the loss arising out of speculative transaction of Rs.33, 48,000/- should be treated as speculative