← 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

M/S. Raina Commodities Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 1(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1188/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Sept 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountantmember & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Judicialmember

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250Section 43(5)

invoked. Moreover, the case of the assessee does not fall within the ambit of section 43(5) of the Act which provides that "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 otherwise ... chargeable to commodities transaction tax under Chapter VII of the Finance Act, 2013 (17 of 2013), shall not be deemed to be a speculative transaction”. In this case, the transactions were done on the stock exchange on which commodity transaction tax has been paid. Therefore, the same does not fall

Sahil Gupta, Delhi vs. CIT(A), Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1708/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraita No.1708/Del/2025, (A.Y.2022-23) Sahil Gupta, Dy. Commissioner Of Income D-304, Vivek Vihar, Tax, Central Circle 58(1), New Delhi- 110095 Vs. Ara Building, Jhandewalan, Pan: Aoipg4087K New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By None Respondent By Sh. Manish Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 21/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29/08/2025 Order Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am This Appeal Of The Assessee For The Assessment Year (‘Ay’) 2022-23 Is Directed Against The Order Dated 02.12.2024 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, New Delhi (‘Cit(A)’).

Section 143(3)Section 271ASection 44A

from F&O trading exceeds Rs 10 crore, an F&O trading tax audit is mandatory. Since the cumulative turnover from F&O and Speculation transactions are below the threshold limit, there is no liability of Tax Audit. 1 Sahil Gupta 2. That is my only income under the head ... Income from Businessis trade in F&O segment and speculative transactions. All other equity transactions are considered under the head income from Capital Gain. 3. As per guidance note issued by ICAI turnover in case of Derivatives, futures and options shall be calculated i.e The total of favorable and unfavorable

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

neutralized the effect of such price fluctuations, hedging contracts were entered into of these materials by the assessee. The AO treated the same as speculative transactions as defined u/s 43(5) of the Act and disallowed the same. It was the argument that such hedging transactions are integral part ... steel and aluminum which are 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

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

neutralized the effect of such price fluctuations, hedging contracts were entered into of these materials by the assessee. The AO treated the same as speculative transactions as defined u/s 43(5) of the Act and disallowed the same. It was the argument that such hedging transactions are integral part ... steel and aluminum which are 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

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

neutralized the effect of such price fluctuations, hedging contracts were entered into of these materials by the assessee. The AO treated the same as speculative transactions as defined u/s 43(5) of the Act and disallowed the same. It was the argument that such hedging transactions are integral part ... steel and aluminum which are 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

Sahil Gupta, Delhi vs. CIT(A), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1739/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Aug 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Sahil Gupta, [Assessee himself]For Respondent: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 271BSection 44A

Shri Sahil Gupta 5. The ld. counsel for the assessee vehemently stated that since the cumulative turnover from F&O and speculation transactions are below the threshold limit, there is no liability of Tax Audit and his only income was under the head “Income from Business” in trading ... segment and speculative transactions. All other equity transactions were considered under the head income from Capital Gain. 6. The ld AR relied on the Guidance Note issued by ICAI regarding turnover in case of derivatives, futures and options and stated that each transaction comprising "buy" and "sell

Moqeetur Rahman Khan, Lucknow vs. Income Tax Officer-4(1), Lucknow

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 206/LKW/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow12 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshramoqeetur Rahman Khan V. Ito-4 971, Mannan Manzil, Sadar Pratyaksh Kar Bhawan, Bazar, Lucknow G.P.O, Lucknow-226001. Lucknow-226001. Pan:Agrpr4785N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Shri Amit Singh Chauhan, Cit(Dr) O R D E R

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Amit Singh Chauhan, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 271BSection 273BSection 44A

turnover(sales) of the appellant was Rs 43,60,67,303/-. On the other hand, as per the appellant the turnover in case of speculative transaction such as derivative trading in options would be the net amount receivable or payable on different sets of transactions (purchases and sales). The magnitude

Arup Banerji, Allahabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Allahabad

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

ITA 154/ALLD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad31 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SH. SUBHASH MALGURIA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. S.K. Jaiswal, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 250Section 43Section 43(5)Section 5

case of appellant in the A.Y. 2012-13 and 2013-14. 1 A.Y. 2015-16 Arup Banerji 4. BECAUSE as per the definition of 'speculative transaction' given in sub-section 5 of section 43, transaction in respect of 'Derivative Trading ' is specifically excluded from the definition of 'speculative transaction ... Before the ld. CIT(A), it was submitted that the ld. AO had failed to appreciate that as per the definition of speculative transactions given in section 43(5), Derivative Trading was specifically excluded from the definition of, “speculative transaction”. As far as contract notes were concerned, the assessee submitted

Varun Batra, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 3205/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Shri Prabhash Shankar, Am Varun Batra National Faceless Appeal Centre Flat 5, 5Th Floor, La Mer, Mistry Park, (Nfac) Kadeshwari Temple Road, Bandra Vs. West, Mumbai – 400050. Pan/Gir No. Aezpb9157L (Appellant) : (Respondent) Assessee By : None Respondent By : Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik, (Sr Dr) Date Of Hearing : 01.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2025 O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J M: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee, Challenging The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Delhi (‘Ld. Cit(A)’ For Short), National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Nfac’ For Short) Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act'), Pertaining To The Assessment Year (‘A.Y.’ For Short) 2013-14. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. That The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi Has Grossly Erred Both In Law And, On Facts In Upholding The Determination Of Total Income Of The Appellant At Rs. 2,46,16,528/- As Against Declared Income At Rs. 2,30,52,930/- In An Order Of Assessment Dated 18.03.2016 U/S 143(3) Of The Act. 2. That The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi Has Grossly Erred Both In Law & Fact In Holding That Sum Of Rs. 15,33,595/-Representing Loss On Account Of Share Trading. Varun Batra

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik, (SR DR)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 234CSection 250Section 68Section 71Section 72

system through a stock broker registered with SEBI and the transactions are duly supported with stamped contract notes, the said transaction was not a speculative transaction, consequently giving it the nature of normal business transaction. 3.1. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has failed to appreciate the evidence ... observed that the assessee has traded in commodity derivatives and had incurred loss of Rs. 15,23,598/- which the ld. AO treated as speculative transaction which cannot be set off with other heads of income. Further, the ld. AO had allowed the carry forward of set off of speculative

Satyam Sureka, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Central Cir-3(3), Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals of the different assessees are partly allowed

ITA 152/KOL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey] I.T.(S.S).A. No. 13 /Kol/2025 Assessment Years: 2013-14 Satyam Sureka Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-3(3), Kolkata

Section 115BSection 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 56(2)Section 68

deals: -e) an eligible transaction in respect of trading in commodity derivatives carried out in a recognized association shall not be deemed to be speculative transaction. It is further important to mention here that all the transaction through the broker were duly recorded in the books of the assessee

Income Tax Officer Ward-28(5), Civic Centre J.L. Nehru Marg, New Delhi vs. Mukesh Kumar Aggarwal, New Delhi

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed as above

ITA 1737/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 69ASection 69C

alleged that the loss incurred on commodity business is a loss on speculative business. Section 43(5) of the Act deals with speculative transactions. For better understanding, text of section 43(5) is being reproduced as under: ……. …….. 6.21 In this section, clause (e) was inserted by the Finance ... trading in commodity derivatives carried out in a recognized stock exchange which is chargeable to commodity transaction tax (CTT) shall not be treated as speculative transaction. Hence, the loss incurred on commodity business is not a speculative loss and is a normal business loss can be set off against other

Bright Paints Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax - 12(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the ground no

ITA 6817/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (Judicial Member), SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri. Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri. Leyaqat Ali, SR. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)(ii)Section 14ASection 250Section 73

sale of shares is deemed to be a speculative business. The assessee on the other hand controverted the said fact and stated that the speculative transaction has been defined u/s. 43(5) of the Act, where on contract for purchase or sale of any commodity including stocks and shares which ... periodically or ultimately settled otherwise than by the actual delivery or transfer of commodity or scrips, then the said transaction would tantamount to a speculative transaction. The provision (d) and (e) to Section 43(5) excludes an eligible transaction in support of trading in derivative carried out in a recognized

Manish Ranjan, DCIT, Central Circle-1(2), Ahmedabad, Ashram Road Ahmedabad vs. N K Proteins, Ashram Road Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 896/AHD/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Jun 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Vartik Chokshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT-DR &
Section 142Section 143(3)Section 250Section 254Section 263

assessee. When the parties that of purchaser and seller are present and not artificial then the said transaction cannot be treated as speculative transaction and the loss incurred thereon cannot be speculative loss. The contention of the Ld. D.R. that the N. K. Proteins and its client has executed

N. K. Proteins Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy. CIT, Circle-3(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 831/AHD/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Jun 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Vartik Chokshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT-DR &
Section 142Section 143(3)Section 250Section 254Section 263

assessee. When the parties that of purchaser and seller are present and not artificial then the said transaction cannot be treated as speculative transaction and the loss incurred thereon cannot be speculative loss. The contention of the Ld. D.R. that the N. K. Proteins and its client has executed

The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Ahmedabad vs. N K Proteins Private Limited, Ahmedabad

In the result, no question of law arises

ITA 546/AHD/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Biren Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT-DR
Section 142Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

transactions have not been carried out at the NSEL Platform which has been accepted by the CIT(A) and hence they are not the speculative transactions of the assessee; the Ld. CIT(A) , however, has made the addition only on the basis of the observation that no delivery challans ... facts of the case have been examined against the provisions of the Act. Section 43(5) of the Act reads as under:- (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 otherwise

N K Proteins Pvt. Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 3(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, no question of law arises

ITA 464/AHD/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Biren Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT-DR
Section 142Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

transactions have not been carried out at the NSEL Platform which has been accepted by the CIT(A) and hence they are not the speculative transactions of the assessee; the Ld. CIT(A) , however, has made the addition only on the basis of the observation that no delivery challans ... facts of the case have been examined against the provisions of the Act. Section 43(5) of the Act reads as under:- (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 otherwise

Sanjeev Kumar Garg, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle 20, Delhi

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

ITA 130/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 May 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar Us & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2019-20]

Section 115BSection 131Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271ASection 69A

duly perused and it was observed that assessee vide submission dated 10.02.2021 stated that the source of cash seized was disclosed as income from speculation transactions in food grains over the period April, 2018 to October 2018, relevant to A.Y. 2019-20. Further, the assessee mentioned that in speculation transactions ... purchase rate and sale rate was received or paid. Hence, no purchase or sale bills are involved. The difference representing the income of speculation transactions was received in cash only and was kept in locker for security reasons. 4.2. The assessee has no documentary evidences in support of his claim

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)

against loss through future price fluctuation in 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 of hedging and was excluded, therefore, from the definition of speculative transaction in terms of Section 43(5)(a) of the Act. The entire controversy, therefore, before us rests on the interpretation of section 43(5)(a) and before proceeding further

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), 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)

hence it is considered speculative in nature. As per Section 43(5) of the Act, ‘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 otherwise than by the actual delivery or transfer ... assessee were settled by way of actual delivery, implying that the transactions are bona fide and hence cannot be construed to be 'speculative transaction'. The relevant extract of bank statement substantiating the claim was :-9-: ITA. Nos:2613,2732,2820, 2835&2836/Chny/2024 submitted by the assessee during the original proceedings

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), Chennai vs. M/S Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Limited, Chennai

ITA 2835/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon'Bleआयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 2613 & 2732/Chny/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Cholamandalam Investment & Finance Company Limited, Chola Crest, C 54 & C 55, Super B-4, Thiru Vi Ka Industrial Estate, Guindy, Guindy Industrial Estate S.O., Chennai - 600 032. [Pan: Aaacc-1226-H] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) & The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, V. Corporate Circle -1(1), Chennai - 600 034. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 2835, 2836 & 2820/Chny/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष / Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2014-15 & 2015-16 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Corporate Circle -1(1), Chennai - 600 034 Cholamandalam Investment & Finance Company V. Limited, (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Chola Crest, C 54 & C 55, Super B-4, Thiru Vi Ka Industrial Estate, Guindy, Guindy Industrial Estate S.O., Chennai - 600 032. [Pan: Aaacc-1226-H] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Assessee By Department By : Mr. Ajith Kumar Jain Ca & Mr. Kunal Shah, Ca & Ms. Aashna Dhila, Ca : Mr. R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit & Ms. Anitha, Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12.02.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28.04.2025 :-2-:

For Respondent: Mr. Ajith Kumar Jain CA & Mr. Kunal Shah, CA
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 43(5)

hence it is considered speculative in nature. As per Section 43(5) of the Act, `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 otherwise than by the actual delivery or transfer ... assessee were settled by way of actual delivery, implying that the transactions are bona fide and hence cannot be construed to be 'speculative transaction'. The relevant extract of bank statement substantiating the claim was :-9-: ITA. Nos:2613,2732,2820, 2835&2836/Chny/2024 submitted by the assessee during the original proceedings