Actual delivery through an authorised agent and isolated speculation were enough to preserve loss set-off in a moong trade dispute.

Actual delivery through an authorised clearing and forwarding agent was treated as sufficient where the purchase price was paid by cheque, the goods were identified by quantity and source, and delivery, loading and transport were supported by records. On that basis, the moong transaction was not treated as speculative under section 43(5), and the trading loss was allowable. The text also notes that even if the transaction were assumed to be speculative, a solitary isolated transaction would not by itself amount to a speculation business. Accordingly, the loss could not be denied on that alternative footing, and set-off against non-speculative business profits remained permissible.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the loss arising from the moong transaction was hit by section 43(5) as a speculative transaction or whether actual delivery had been taken so that the transaction was a regular business transaction. (ii) Whether, even if the transaction were treated as speculative, a solitary speculative transaction could be disallowed as speculation business so as to deny set-off against non-speculative business profits.

Issue (i): Whether the loss arising from the moong transaction was hit by section 43(5) as a speculative transaction or whether actual delivery had been taken so that the transaction was a regular business transaction.

Analysis: The purchase price stood paid by cheque and the goods were identified by quantity and source. The assessee engaged a clearing and forwarding agent to take delivery at Bombay Port and to move the goods onward to the railway station, and the agent's expenditure on loading, unloading and transport was supported by a bill and payment record. On these facts, possession through an authorised representative amounted to actual delivery. Mere mention of the seller as consignor in the railway receipt did not by itself establish continued ownership in the seller or convert the transaction into a paper arrangement.

Conclusion: The transaction was not speculative within section 43(5), and the loss was allowable.

Issue (ii): Whether, even if the transaction were treated as speculative, a solitary speculative transaction could be disallowed as speculation business so as to deny set-off against non-speculative business profits.

Analysis: The record did not show any regular or systematic speculative business. The statutory distinction between a speculative transaction and speculation business required more than an isolated transaction. A solitary transaction, even if assumed to be settled otherwise than by actual delivery, would not by itself constitute speculation business so as to bar adjustment against business profits.

Conclusion: The loss could not be denied on the footing of speculation business, and set-off was permissible.

Final Conclusion: The assessee succeeded on both the principal and alternative grounds, and the addition disallowing the trading loss did not survive.

Ratio Decidendi: Possession taken through an authorised agent for unloading and transport can amount to actual delivery, and an isolated speculative transaction does not by itself constitute speculation business for denying set-off of loss.

---