<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1978 (4) TMI 123 - ITAT HYDERABAD-A</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=66279</link>
    <description>Loss arising from ready delivery contracts settled by payment of price differences was not treated as speculative business, so the assessee was entitled to the set-off claimed. Although settlement otherwise than by actual delivery brought the individual transactions within the technical definition of speculative transaction under section 43(5) of the Income-tax Act, the decisive question was whether the assessee carried on a speculative business. On the facts, the contracts were entered into in the ordinary course of business, most were performed by actual delivery, and the remaining contracts were adjusted only because delivery could not be made for reasons beyond control. The Board&#039;s circular treated such partly performed and partly adjusted contracts as exceptional and not liable to disallowance on the Department&#039;s theory.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 12 Apr 1978 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 23 Feb 2011 13:01:58 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=104714" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1978 (4) TMI 123 - ITAT HYDERABAD-A</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=66279</link>
      <description>Loss arising from ready delivery contracts settled by payment of price differences was not treated as speculative business, so the assessee was entitled to the set-off claimed. Although settlement otherwise than by actual delivery brought the individual transactions within the technical definition of speculative transaction under section 43(5) of the Income-tax Act, the decisive question was whether the assessee carried on a speculative business. On the facts, the contracts were entered into in the ordinary course of business, most were performed by actual delivery, and the remaining contracts were adjusted only because delivery could not be made for reasons beyond control. The Board&#039;s circular treated such partly performed and partly adjusted contracts as exceptional and not liable to disallowance on the Department&#039;s theory.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 12 Apr 1978 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=66279</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>