https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=70723 Where a dealer had sufficient stock to perform a forward contract but chose not to deliver and instead paid the buyer damages after market prices rose, the payment was treated as liquidated damages for breach of contract and not as a speculative loss under section 43(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The amount was therefore allowable as an ordinary business loss. The facts also supported the protective principle applicable to hedging transactions, since the deal was within normal business dealings and was not a speculative settlement. On that basis, section 73 was not attracted. en-us Thu, 19 Jul 1984 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 18 Apr 2011 17:46:07 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=70723 Where a dealer had sufficient stock to perform a forward contract but chose not to deliver and instead paid the buyer damages after market prices rose, the payment was treated as liquidated damages for breach of contract and not as a speculative loss under section 43(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The amount was therefore allowable as an ordinary business loss. The facts also supported the protective principle applicable to hedging transactions, since the deal was within normal business dealings and was not a speculative settlement. On that basis, section 73 was not attracted. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 19 Jul 1984 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=70723