<?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>2010 (9) TMI 1143 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=181951</link>
    <description>Derivative transactions carried out on a recognised stock exchange were treated as falling within the exception in section 43(5), as inserted by the Finance Act, 2005 with effect from 1 April 2006, so they were not speculative transactions for assessment year 2006-07. The stock exchange notification was viewed as clarificatory and not as overriding the statutory scheme. On that basis, derivative losses were not speculative losses and the related expenditure could not be disallowed on the footing of speculation business.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 30 Sep 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 29 Dec 2016 18:53:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=425916" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (9) TMI 1143 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=181951</link>
      <description>Derivative transactions carried out on a recognised stock exchange were treated as falling within the exception in section 43(5), as inserted by the Finance Act, 2005 with effect from 1 April 2006, so they were not speculative transactions for assessment year 2006-07. The stock exchange notification was viewed as clarificatory and not as overriding the statutory scheme. On that basis, derivative losses were not speculative losses and the related expenditure could not be disallowed on the footing of speculation business.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 30 Sep 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=181951</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>