TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>MCX trading loss ruled speculative, not business loss.</h1> <h3>M/s Varsha Corporation Ltd. Versus DCIT (OSD) -9 (1), Mumbai</h3> M/s Varsha Corporation Ltd. Versus DCIT (OSD) -9 (1), Mumbai - TMI Issues Involved:1. Whether the loss incurred on trading in futures and options on MCX should be treated as speculation loss or business loss.Detailed Analysis:Treatment of Loss as Speculation or Business Loss:The primary issue revolves around the treatment of a loss amounting to Rs. 21,04,331 incurred by the assessee on trading in futures and options on the MCX. The assessee initially treated this loss as speculative in their original and revised returns but later claimed it as a business loss in a re-revised return.During assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer (AO) treated the loss as speculative, based on the fact that the MCX was not recognized as a stock exchange under Section 43(5) during the relevant assessment year (2009-10). The AO referenced the proviso to Section 43(5), which states that trading in derivatives on a recognized stock exchange is not deemed speculative. However, the MCX was recognized as a stock exchange only from 22-5-2009, which pertained to the financial year 2009-10 and not the assessment year 2009-10.The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] upheld the AO's decision, noting that Section 43(5)(d)(ii) applies to recognized stock exchanges by SEBI, which deals with share trading. Since the MCX is a commodity exchange recognized by the FMC, it did not fall within the ambit of Section 43(5)(d)(ii). Therefore, the loss was correctly treated as speculative.Arguments and Precedents:The assessee cited the case of ACIT Vs. Arnav Akshay Mehta, where the Mumbai ITAT held that transactions carried out through the MCX Stock Exchange after 1-4-2006 should be treated as non-speculative. The assessee also referred to the case of CIT Vs. Nasa Finelease P Ltd., where the Delhi High Court ruled that the delay in recognizing a stock exchange should not affect the nature of transactions conducted under the statutory provision.Despite these precedents, the Tribunal noted that the MCX was recognized as a 'recognized association' for the purposes of clause (e) of the proviso to Section 43(5) only from 1-4-2014, as inserted by the Finance Act, 2013. Therefore, this provision did not apply to the transactions conducted by the assessee in the financial year 2008-09.Conclusion:The Tribunal concluded that since the MCX was not a recognized stock exchange under Section 43(5)(d) during the relevant period, the loss incurred on trading in futures and options on the MCX should be treated as speculative. The appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed, and the treatment of the loss as speculative was upheld.Judgment:The appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. The loss incurred on trading in futures and options on the MCX is to be treated as a speculative loss, not a business loss. The Tribunal's decision is based on the statutory provisions and the recognition status of the MCX during the relevant assessment year.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
