Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2010 (9) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2010 (9) TMI 1144 - AT - Income Taxloss incurred - ‘futures and options’ transactions - ‘speculative transaction’ - Transaction covered u/s 043(5)(d) - HELD THAT:- We find that it is undisputed position that the stock exchanges, on which the impugned transactions were carried out , were duly notified on 25th January 2006, and that in accordance with the views of the co-ordinate bench in the case of Anand Buildwel [2009 (10) TMI 633 - ITAT DELHI], as also with the views in the case of Claris Lifesciences [2008 (8) TMI 579 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT], once the approval is granted in the relevant previous year, and in the absence of anything indicated to the contrary, the approval has to be taken as effective from the beginning of the relevant year. The issue is thus covered, in favour of the line of reasoning adopted by the assessee, Respectfully following these decisions, we uphold the grievance of the assessee and hold that the derivate transactions, entered into by the assessee at the recognized stock exchanges even prior to the date of notification in the relevant previous year, are to be treated as covered by the exclusion clause set out in Section 43(5)(d). The assessee gets the relief accordingly. Disallowance of club entrance fees - HELD THAT:- we are inclined to uphold the grievance of the assessee. This issue is covered in favour of the assessee in the case of Gujarat State Export Corporation [1993 (9) TMI 52 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT]. As regards the Frematone decision [2006 (7) TMI 180 - KERALA HIGH COURT], it deals with a situation in which lumpsum payment is made for institutional membership. We respectfully follow Hon’ble Gujarat High Court’s decision which is squarely on the issue before us. As regards the question of commercial expediency, which has been raised by the learned DR, we find that the authorities below have accepted the commercial expediency, and it would not , therefore, be open to the DR to raise that issue at this stage. In view of the these discussions and on the above facts, we uphold the grievance of the assessee. The impugned disallowance of ₹ 1,10,241 is, accordingly, deleted.
|