2025 (11) TMI 1298 - AT - Income Tax

Derivative forex loss held non-speculative business loss under s. 43(5)(d), eligible for normal set-off and treatment

ITAT Kolkata allowed the assessee's appeal, holding that losses from derivative and commodity transactions in foreign exchange constituted non-speculative ... Disallowance of future trading transactions treating the same as speculative loss - assessee has incurred loss from its business activity of derivative trading and commodity from foreign exchange - whether the said loss is a speculative loss or is covered under the exceptions as envisaged and provided u/s 43(5)(d)? - HELD THAT:- Loss incurred by the assessee on trading in commodity on foreign exchange is covered under explanation clause u/s 43(5)(d) of the Act as has been held in the following decision of Vinay Prakash (HUF) [2022 (6) TMI 533 - ITAT DELHI] AND IVF ADVISORS PRIVATE LIMITED [2015 (5) TMI 706 - ITAT MUMBAI] We are of the view that loss incurred by the assessee in trading in commodity on foreign currency is not speculative loss. Accordingly, we allow the ground no. 1 by setting aside the order of the learned CIT(A). Appeal of the assessee is allowed. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1. Whether loss arising from trading in commodity on foreign exchange / currency derivative transactions carried out on a recognized stock exchange is a 'speculative loss' within the meaning of Section 43(5) of the Income-tax Act for the assessment year under consideration. 2. Whether such transactions fall within the exception under proviso (d) to Section 43(5) read with Explanation-1 thereto (i.e., constitute 'eligible transaction(s)' carried out electronically on screen-based systems through a stock broker registered under the SEBI Act) and thereby are excluded from the definition of 'speculative transaction'. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1 - Characterisation of loss from forex / foreign-currency commodity derivative trading as 'speculative loss' Legal framework: Section 43(5) defines 'speculative transaction' and prescribes special set-off/carry-forward rules for speculative losses. Proviso (d) to Section 43(5) and Explanation-1 carve out exceptions where certain derivative transactions executed on recognized stock exchanges are not to be treated as speculative. Precedent treatment: The Tribunal relied on co-ordinate bench decisions which held that currency-derivative transactions carried out on recognized exchanges are covered by the definition of 'derivatives' and excluded from speculative transactions by the proviso (d) and Explanation-1. The learned CIT(A) had relied on authorities dealing with commodity-derivative hedging on MCX; those decisions were distinguished on facts because they concerned hedging in commodity trading (e.g., gold on MCX) rather than trading in foreign-currency/forex derivative segments. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court examined documentary evidence (contract notes, ledger entries) showing transactions in currency derivatives executed on the currency-derivative segment of a recognized stock exchange through a registered share broker. The inclusive definition of 'derivative' under the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act (which expressly includes commodity and other instruments) and CBDT Instruction No. 03/2010 (directing AO's to examine forex-derivative losses and apply proviso (d) and Explanation-1) were applied. On the facts, the transactions satisfied the Explanation-1 conditions (electronically on screen-based systems through a SEBI-registered broker on a recognized exchange), leading to the conclusion that such losses are not speculative. Ratio vs. Obiter: The finding that a loss on currency/forex derivative transactions executed on a recognized exchange through a registered broker is not a speculative loss (for purposes of set-off and carry-forward) is ratio decidendi as applied to the facts. Distinguishing hedge-commodity authorities is ratio to the extent necessary to delimit the scope of proviso (d); remarks on administrative instructions and other tribunal decisions are supportive reasoning (not mere obiter). Conclusion: The loss arising from trading in commodity on foreign exchange / currency derivative transactions in the present facts is not a speculative loss within Section 43(5). The appellate authority's confirmation of disallowance was set aside and the loss is to be treated as non-speculative. Issue 2 - Applicability of proviso (d) to Section 43(5) and Explanation-1 (i.e., whether transactions constitute 'eligible transactions') Legal framework: Proviso (d) to Section 43(5) excludes from 'speculative transaction' any 'eligible transaction' in respect of trading in derivatives (as defined in clause (ac) of Section 2 of the SCRA) carried out in a recognized stock exchange. Explanation-1 defines 'eligible transaction' to mean transactions carried out electronically on screen-based systems through a SEBI-registered stock broker. Precedent treatment: Co-ordinate benches have held that foreign-currency and options/derivative transactions executed on exchange platforms fall within the SCRA definition of 'derivative' and so meet proviso (d)'s exclusion (cited tribunal precedents applied). The appellate order under challenge relied on decisions concerning different factual matrices (commodity hedging), which were distinguished. Interpretation and reasoning: On documentary review the assessee's transactions were demonstrated by contract notes to be executed on the currency-derivative segment of a recognized stock exchange via a registered broker, satisfying the conditions of Explanation-1 and proviso (d). The Tribunal also relied on CBDT guidance instructing Assessing Officers to treat settled forex-derivative losses as non-speculative where they meet the proviso/Explanation criteria and to seek specific breakup where losses are hidden under other heads. Ratio vs. Obiter: The Court's determination that the instant transactions satisfy the cumulative requirements of proviso (d) and Explanation-1 is the operative ratio. Reference to administrative instruction and other tribunal orders functions as authoritative support and is integral to the ratio rather than mere obiter. Conclusion: The transactions qualify as 'eligible transaction(s)' under Explanation-1 and are therefore excluded from the definition of 'speculative transaction' by proviso (d) to Section 43(5). Consequently, losses are ordinary business losses for purposes of set-off and carry-forward. Relief and consequential direction Because the transactions were correctly shown, documented and executed on the recognized exchange through a registered broker, the Court directed that the Assessing Officer restore the assessee's claim treating the losses as non-speculative and allow set-off / carry forward in accordance with law; the CIT(A) order disallowing the loss was set aside. Cross-references Reference is made to: (a) the inclusive definition of 'derivative' in clause (ac) of Section 2 of the SCRA; (b) Explanation-1 to Section 43(5); and (c) CBDT Instruction No. 03/2010 (23.03.2010) guiding treatment of forex-derivative losses - each applied cumulatively to reach the result. The Tribunal distinguished authorities concerning exchange-traded commodity hedging where the factual matrix did not satisfy the requisites of proviso (d) and Explanation-1.