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: VAT RATES :: due date for vat payment :: form 3cd :: list of goods taxed at 4% :: cpt :: articles on VAT and GST in India :: TDS :: empanelment :: TAX RATES - GOODS TAXABLE @ 4% :: ACCOUNTING STANDARD :: ACCOUNTING STANDARDS :: ICAI offer Get Windows 7,Office 2010 in Rs.799 Taxes :: Central Excise rule to resale the machines to a new company :: ARTICLES ON INPUT TAX CREDIT IN VAT :: VAT Audit
 
 
From the Courts »
  Avtec Limited Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax
 Avtec Limited Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax
  Indus Towers Limited Through: Its Authorised Signatory Mr. Amish Mehta, Chief Financial Officer Vs. Deputy Commissioiner Of Income Tax, Circle- 11(1) & Anr.
 ITO vs. Gravity Systems Pvt. Ltd (ITAT Delhi)
 Mehsana District Central Co-op Bank Ltd vs. ACIT (Gujarat High Court)
 ACIT vs. Vireet Investment Pvt Ltd (ITAT Delhi) (Special Bench)
  B.A.Mohota Textiles Traders Pvt. Ltd vs. DCIT (Bombay High Court)
 Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Delhi-1 Vs. Amadeus India Pvt. Ltd.
  AAA Paper Marketing Ltd vs. ACIT (ITAT Lucknow)
 CIT vs. Mettler Toledo India Pvt. Ltd (Bombay High Court)
 B.A.Mohota Textiles Traders Pvt. Ltd vs. DCIT (Bombay High Court)

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 2017 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