Latest Expert Exchange Queries
sitemapHome | Registration | Job Portal for CA's | Expert Exchange | Currency Converter | Post Matrimonial Ads | Post Property Ads
 
 
News shortcuts: From the Courts | News Headlines | VAT (Value Added Tax) | Service Tax | Sales Tax | Placements & Empanelment | Various Acts & Rules | Latest Circulars | New Forms | Forex | Auditing | Direct Tax | Customs and Excise | ICAI | Corporate Law | Markets | Students | General | Indirect Tax | Mergers and Acquisitions | Continuing Prof. Edu. | Budget Extravaganza | Transfer Pricing
 
 
 
 
Popular Search: ACCOUNTING STANDARD :: empanelment :: cpt :: articles on VAT and GST in India :: VAT RATES :: ICAI offer Get Windows 7,Office 2010 in Rs.799 Taxes :: list of goods taxed at 4% :: due date for vat payment :: ARTICLES ON INPUT TAX CREDIT IN VAT :: Central Excise rule to resale the machines to a new company :: VAT Audit :: form 3cd :: TDS :: ACCOUNTING STANDARDS :: TAX RATES - GOODS TAXABLE @ 4%
 
 
From the Courts »
  Vatsala Shenoy vs. JCIT (Supreme Court)
  Vatsala Shenoy vs. JCIT (Supreme Court)
 M.K.Overseas Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Pr.Commissioner Of Income Tax-06
 Arshia Ahmed Qureshi Vs. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-21
 CHAUDHARY SKIN TRADING COMPANY Vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-21
  Sushila Devi vs. CIT (Delhi High Court)
  Vatsala Shenoy vs. JCIT (Supreme Court)
 Deputy Director Of Income Tax Vs. Virage Logic International
 Commissioner Of Income Tax-3 International Taxation Vs. Virage Logic International India
 Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-06 Vs. Moderate Leasing And Capital Services Pvt. Ltd.
 ITO vs. Vikram A. Pradhan (ITAT Mumbai)

Deals before 2006 were speculative, rules ITAT
September, 05th 2009

It is a ruling that could have an impact on assessments of stock market brokers and derivatives traders prior to April 2006. 

In variance to a Mumbai tribunal ruling, a special bench of the Kolkata Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) recently held that derivatives transactions conducted before April 2006 were speculative, and income or loss arising from such deals cannot be offset against non-speculative losses or gains.

Tax experts pointed out that in light of the ruling, several old cases involving stock market constituents could be reopened or pending assessments could be severely hit. They expect the special bench ruling to be contested in a higher court.

The special bench judgement was delivered in a case pertaining to a Kolkata-based assessee Shree Capital Services for the assessment year 2004-05. It varied with a Mumbai tribunal ruling of September 25, 2007, in case of SSKI Investor Services for the assessment year 2001-02. The Kolkata special bench ruled: "Futures and options transactions are speculative U/S 43(5). Sec 43 (5) (d) is not retrospective."

Prior to the amendment of Section 43(5) of the IT Act, there was ambiguity regarding the treatment of income or loss generated from derivatives transactions. However, the ambiguity was removed by an amendment {S. 43(5)(d)} effective from April 2006, which ruled that if such transactions were carried out on recognised stock exchanges, they would not be deemed speculative.

The Bombay tribunal had in 2007 clarified the amendment to Section 43(5) was retrospective by ruling, "Dealing in derivatives is a separate type of transaction, which does not involve any purchase or sale of shares. Therefore, a loss on account of derivatives trading cannot be treated as speculative at all."

When contacted, most brokers said they were unaware of the special bench judgement. Currently, loss or profit from a derivatives transaction can be offset against other non-speculative profit or loss. This provides some tax relief to assessees, who deal in stock futures and options. However, by ruling that the amendment is not retrospective, assessments pending prior to April 1, 2006 will be hit, with assessees being unable to avail of tax relief.

"Although the special bench judgement practically overrules the division bench judgement, there are several other Supreme Court judgements upholding the view that any amendment which is clarificatory in nature is always retrospective," said chartered accountant Bhupendra Shah.

"Therefore, the special bench judgement is most likely to be contested further before the Kolkata High Court on that line."

 
 
Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2016 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Binarysoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Binarysoft Technologies - Our Experience

Transfer Pricing | International Taxation | Business Consulting | Corporate Compliance and Consulting | Assurance and Risk Advisory | Indirect Taxes | Direct Taxes | Transaction Advisory | Regular Compliance and Reporting | Tax Assessments | International Taxation Advisory | Capital Structuring | Withholding tax advisory | Expatriate Tax Reporting | Litigation | Badges | Club Badges | Seals | Military Insignias | Emblems | Family Crest | Software Development India | Software Development Company | SEO Company | Web Application Development | MLM Software | MLM Solutions