Gujarat High Court High Court

Commissioner vs Unknown on 26 August, 2010

Gujarat High Court
Commissioner vs Unknown on 26 August, 2010
Author: D.A.Mehta,&Nbsp;Honourable Ms.Justice H.N.Devani,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

TAXAP/191/2005	 3/ 3	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

TAX
APPEAL No. 191 of 2005
 

 
 
===================================================
 

COMMISSIONER
OF INCOME TAX - Appellant(s)
 

Versus
 

CHANDRAKANT
A. DESAI - Opponent(s)
 

=================================================== 
Appearance
: 
MR
MANISH R BHATT for Appellant(s) : 1, 
None
for Opponent(s) : 1, 
===============================================
 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA
		
	
	 
		 
			 

 

			
		
		 
			 

and
		
	
	 
		 
			 

 

			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MS.JUSTICE H.N.DEVANI
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 10/10/2005 

 

ORAL
ORDER

(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA)

1 The
appellant revenue has proposed the following two questions :

?S[A] Whether the Appellate
Tribunal is right in law and on facts in allowing the claim of the
assessee for hedging loss at Rs.4,06,170/-, when even as per the
version of the assessee, there were no existing contract in respect
of which he was likely to suffer loss ?

[B] Whether the Appellate
Tribunal ought not have appreciated that the repetitive transactions
in question were ‘speculative transactions’ as defined u/s.43(5) of
the Act???

2 Heard
Mr.M.R.Bhatt, learned Standing Counsel for the appellant-revenue.

3 As
can be seen from impugned order of Tribunal dated 11/09/2003, both
the Appellate Authorities have concurrently found that the assessee
was owning and possessing 1800 shares of TISCO which are shown as
stock-in-trade and the loss in question was on account of hedging
transaction. The Tribunal has further taken note of the fact that
on two occasions when the transactions exceeded the amount of stock
they could not be treated as hedging transaction and could be
treated as loss on speculative Account. The findings have been
recorded by the authorities on analysis of the details of the
transactions. In the circumstances, no substantial question of law
arises and the appeal is dismissed.

					Sd/-				Sd/-
 

      
        (D.A.Mehta, J)    
(H.N.Devani, J)
 

m.m.bhatt

    

 
	   
      
      
	    
		      
	   
      
	  	    
		   Top