TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (6) TMI 169
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n filed by the assessee, without appreciating that the revised return was filed by the assessee beyond the time limit prescribed u/s. 139(5) as such the revised return filed is invalid. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT (A) erred in deleting the addition of 3,50,481/-, made on account of disallowance of bad debts claimed, following the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of TRF Limited ( Civil Appeal No. 5293 of 2003), without appreciating that the decision relied upon is not relevant to the facts of the case as on the basis of evidence furnished at the time of assessment proceedings the loss claimed was capital in nature. Without prejudice to the above the bad Debt claimed cannot be allowed as it is approved on 30-04-2007 as such it is premature. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT (A) erred in holding that loss on commodity futures of 13,95,241/- is a speculation loss covered under the provisions of Sec.43(5)(d) instead of business loss, as held by the AO, without appreciating that the transactions relating to loss on commodities derivative trading were not carried out through recog....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o restriction on the jurisdiction and the power of appellate authority to consider a fresh plea in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. vs. CIT" [1998] 229 ITR 383 (SC). Accordingly, we do not find any error or illegality in the order of Ld. CIT(A) in allowing the correct amount of STT claimed by the assessee in the revised return of income. 4. Ground No.2 is regarding the disallowance of excess donation paid on the basis of revised return. We have heard the Ld. D.R. as well as the Ld. A.R. and considered the relevant material on record. The AO has disallowed the claim of donation paid by the assessee on the ground that the revised return filed by the assessee is beyond the time limit prescribed under section 139(5). The Ld. CIT(A) has accepted the claim of the assessee. Since on merits the AO has not disputed the claim of the assessee, therefore we do not find any error or illegality in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in allowing the correct figure of donation paid by the assessee in view of our finding on ground No.1. 3. Ground No.3 is regarding the disallowance of bad debts. The assessee claimed as written off the bad debts....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sp; "11. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced at the hands of the learned counsel for the assessee as well as learned DR for the department. Admittedly, MCX, through which the assessee has carried out the transactions, is not a recognized stock exchange as required under the provisions of Section 43(5)(d) of the Act. As it can be seen from the abovementioned Notification dated 2911-2013, which has been relied upon by the learned AR, which has also been reproduced in the above part of this order, the MCX, through which the assessee has carried out the transactions, is notified as a "recognized association" for the purposes of clause (e) of proviso to clause 5 of Section 43 of the Act. Clause (e) of proviso to subsection (5) of Section 43 has recently been inserted by the Finance Act, 2013 w.e.f. 1st April, 2014, which reads as under :- "(e) an eligible transaction in respect of trading in commodity derivatives carried out in a recognized association, shall not be deemed to be a speculative transaction." T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y in cases of genuine error and maintain data regarding all transactions (in respect of derivative market) registered in the system which have been modified and submit a monthly statement in Form No. 3BC to the Director General of Income-tax (Intelligence and Criminal Investigation), New Delhi within fifteen days from the last day of each month to which such statement relates. 6DDD. Notification of a recognized association for the purposes of clause (e) of the proviso to clause (5) of section 43.- (1) An application for notification of a recognized association (as per clause (j) of section 2 of the Forward Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1952) as a recognized association for the purposes of clause (e) of the proviso to clause (5) of section 43 may be made to the Member (Legislation), Central Board of Direct Taxes, North Block, New Delhi. (2) The application referred to in sub-rule (1) shall be accompanied with the following documents, namely :- (i) approval granted by Forward Markets Commission for trading in derivatives; (ii) up-to-date rules, bye-laws and trading regulations of the recognized association; (iii) confirmation regarding fulfilling the conditions referred to in clause (i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s inserted by the Finance Act, 2005 w.e.f. 1-4-2006. Therefore, for the transactions, which were under consideration in that case, were held to be not of speculative nature under the provisions of clause (d) of the proviso to Section 43(5) of the Act and the said case relates to assessment year 2007-08. The transactions entered into by the assessee after insertion of clause (d) of the proviso to Section 43(5), were held to be of non-speculative nature as there was a provision on the statute. However, in the present case, when the assessee carried out these transactions, there was no existing provision in the statute in the shape of clause (e) of the proviso to Section 43(5). 13. In the case of CIT Vs. Nasa Finelease Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the case relates to proviso (d) to sub-section 5 of Section 43 of the Act and the said insertion was made by the Finance Act, 2005 and the National Stock Exchange and Bombay Stock Exchange, through which the assessee in that case had carried out the transaction were notified on 25th January, 2006. It was the case of the assessee that the transaction conducted by it from July 2005 to September, 2005, cannot be rejected for the benefit of proviso (d) to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... as well as the Ld. A.R. and considered the relevant material on record. At the outset, we note that the claim of the assessee regarding depreciation and expenses on the boat has been allowed by the AO in the earlier year i.e. A.Y. 2006-07 while passing the assessment order under section 143(3). Even in the subsequent assessment year for the A.Y. 2008-09 to 2012-13 the AO has allowed the claim of the assessee. The details of the status of the claim of the assessee in all the assessment years are as under: Sr. no Asst. Year Expenses on Boat Depr. On Boat Allowability Assessment Completed u/s 1 2006-07 Claimed Claimed Allowed by AO 143(3) 2 2007-08 Claimed Claimed Under Appeal Under Appeal 3 2008-09 Claimed Claimed Allowed by AO 143(1) 4 2009-10 Claimed Claimed Allowed by AO 143(3) 5 2010-11 Claimed Claimed Allowed by AO 143(3) 6 2011-12 Claimed Claimed Allowed by AO 143(1) 7 2012-13 Claimed Claimed Allowed by AO 143(3) Therefore, in view of the fact that except the year under consideration the AO has accepted the claim of the assessee on account of depreciation and other expenses on boat. When there is no change in facts and circumst....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nded that after setting off of brought forward business losses of Rs. 2,47,76,604/- under section 72 of the Act the gross income from business comes to nil in comparison to the income from other sources at Rs. 75,26,828/-, therefore the assessee falls under the exception provided in explanation to section 73. He has further contended that for computation of gross total income as required under the explanation to section 73 the brought forward business loss as well as unabsorbed depreciation brought forward has to be given effect and then only the income from business being gross total income to be computed. In support of his contention, has he relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of "CIT vs. Darshan Securities Ltd." 341 ITR 556. In rejoinder, the Ld. D.R. has submitted that the gross total income has to be taken into account only for the year under consideration and not the income of the earlier years for the purpose of explanation to section 73. 14. We have considered the rival submissions as well as relevant material on record. There is no quarrel as far as the exception carved out in the explanation to section 73 of the Act that if the comp....