AO directed to re-examine derivative transactions under section 43(5)(d) and verify stock exchange compliance for proper treatment

ITAT Cuttack remanded matters to AO for fresh examination regarding derivative transactions and foreign exchange losses. The tribunal found CIT(A) incorrectly applied section 43(5)(a) instead of claimed section 43(5)(d). AO directed to verify if derivative transactions were conducted through recognized stock exchanges as required under sections 43(5)(d) and 43(5)(e), and if compliant, treat as normal business transactions rather than speculative. Additionally, AO must re-examine unsecured loans from Outram Properties Pvt Ltd, verifying their return filing and financial capacity before deciding the issue.

---

---

Issues:
1. Disallowance of set off of loss in derivative transactions as speculative transactions.
2. Disallowance of unsecured credit for a loan.
3. Corresponding effect of disallowance in subsequent assessment year.

Issue 1: Disallowance of set off of loss in derivative transactions as speculative transactions:
The appellant contested the disallowance of set off of losses in derivative transactions by the Assessing Officer, claiming it should be treated as a business loss under section 43(5)(d) of the Income Tax Act. The appellant argued that the losses were not speculative but related to transactions through recognized Stock Exchanges. However, the Tribunal noted that no evidence was presented to prove that the transactions were exclusively derivatives and conducted through recognized Stock Exchanges. The Tribunal highlighted the provisions of section 43(5)(d) and 43(5)(e) of the Act, emphasizing the necessity for transactions to be through recognized Stock Exchanges. As evidence regarding the nature of transactions and the Stock Exchanges involved was lacking, the Tribunal remanded the issue back to the Assessing Officer for further examination.

Issue 2: Disallowance of unsecured credit for a loan:
The Assessing Officer disallowed an unsecured credit for a loan, claiming non-response from the creditor and lack of evidence. The appellant argued that the loan was repaid, interest was paid, and TDS was deducted, thus the disallowance was unwarranted. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to re-examine the issue, ensuring Outram Properties Pvt Ltd's income tax return filing and financial capacity verification, granting the appellant a fair opportunity to present their case.

Issue 3: Corresponding effect of disallowance in subsequent assessment year:
The Tribunal noted the lack of consideration by the Assessing Officer regarding the corresponding effect of disallowance in the subsequent assessment year when the loan was repaid. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to address this oversight during the re-examination process.

In conclusion, the Tribunal partially allowed the appeals for statistical purposes and directed the Assessing Officer to re-adjudicate the issues mentioned above, providing the appellant with adequate opportunity for a fair hearing.

---