<?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>1968 (6) TMI 10 - CALCUTTA High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=7505</link>
    <description>Transactions in jute and hessian concluded by transfer of pucca delivery orders, without actual physical delivery of the commodity, were treated as speculative transactions under Explanation 2 to the proviso to section 24(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The court held that a contract is settled when it ends otherwise than by performance through actual delivery, and that constructive or symbolic delivery by pucca delivery orders is not actual delivery of the goods themselves. On the facts found, the assessee&#039;s loss arose from such settlement and was therefore rightly characterised as speculation loss, with earlier authorities distinguished on their facts.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 18 Jun 1968 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 20 Feb 2009 18:45:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=46555" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1968 (6) TMI 10 - CALCUTTA High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=7505</link>
      <description>Transactions in jute and hessian concluded by transfer of pucca delivery orders, without actual physical delivery of the commodity, were treated as speculative transactions under Explanation 2 to the proviso to section 24(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The court held that a contract is settled when it ends otherwise than by performance through actual delivery, and that constructive or symbolic delivery by pucca delivery orders is not actual delivery of the goods themselves. On the facts found, the assessee&#039;s loss arose from such settlement and was therefore rightly characterised as speculation loss, with earlier authorities distinguished on their facts.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 18 Jun 1968 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=7505</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>