Foreign exchange forward contract cancellations in export hedging-loss treated as business deduction, not speculative u/s43(5)

The dominant issue was whether loss on cancellation/settlement of foreign exchange forward contracts constituted a speculative loss under s.43(5) of the Income-tax Act or an allowable business loss. The HC held that s.43(5) targets contracts for purchase/sale of a commodity settled otherwise than by actual delivery, but the assessee was not a dealer in foreign exchange and had entered forward contracts only incidentally in the ordinary course of its export business to hedge currency risk. Since the underlying export contracts failed in certain cases, the resulting cancellation loss arose from hedging activity integral to business operations. The loss was therefore deductible as business loss, and the appeal was decided in favour of the assessee.

---

---

Issues:
1. Disallowance of loss claimed due to cancellation of forward contract under section 43(5) of the Income Tax Act.

Analysis:
The High Court judgment involved an appeal by the Revenue against the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal's decision regarding the disallowance of a loss claimed due to the cancellation of a forward contract. The main question raised was whether the transactions in question fell within the definition of speculative transactions as per section 43(5) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal had relied on its previous decision in a similar case and upheld the deletion of the disallowance. The High Court referred to previous judgments by the Bombay High Court and the Calcutta High Court to analyze the nature of the transactions. The Bombay High Court had held that certain losses claimed by an exporter were not speculative in nature as the contracts were incidental to the regular course of business. Similarly, the Calcutta High Court had allowed a claim for loss incurred in a forward contract by a firm engaged in import and export of jute, stating that the loss was not speculative but incidental to the business. The High Court found that the facts in the present case were similar, and the transactions were not speculative but related to hedging against losses due to fluctuation in foreign exchange.

The High Court also addressed the observations made by the CIT (Appeals) regarding the correlation between the exchange document and the export contract. While there were some observations suggesting a lack of direct correlation, the High Court emphasized that the assessee had entered into multiple contracts with the bankers, indicating a business purpose. The High Court distinguished other cases where the nature of transactions was held to be speculative, emphasizing the burden of proof on the assessee to show that the transactions were not speculative but hedging transactions. The High Court concluded that the decisions of the Bombay High Court and the Calcutta High Court covered the situation in the present appeal, leading to the dismissal of the tax appeal.

Furthermore, the Revenue's counsel mentioned that the decision of the High Court was not appealed further due to the tax effect being lower than the threshold set by the CBDT. However, the High Court affirmed the binding nature of its decision, resulting in the dismissal of the tax appeal. The judgment highlighted the importance of previous court decisions in determining the nature of transactions for tax purposes and the burden of proof on the assessee to establish the non-speculative nature of transactions claimed as business losses.

---