Jayesh Raichand Shah Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax - 2013 (1) TMI 598 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT - Income Tax
......... ng transactions did not satisfy such conditions and therefore the case did not fall under clause (a). It is thus presently, at least, not even the case of the Assessing Officer that the assessee not fulfilling the requirements contained in clause (a) of sub-section (5), such loss should be treated as arising out of speculative transaction. That the exclusion contained in clause (a) would not be available and the transaction, therefore, should be treated as speculative transaction as defined in clause (d) of sub-section (5) to section 43. In light of the above reasons, we do not propose to go into the third additional contention with respect to the assessment year 2008-09 raised by the counsel for the petitioner that the Assessing Officer having rejected the books and independently computed the income, the question of disallowing the loss thereafter would not arise. We keep such question open. 24. In the result, both the petitions are allowed. The impugned notices are quashed.