TMI Blog2010 (9) TMI 905X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ition to the stock exchanges for the future - option trade. (ii) Modus oprendi of the business remains the same, (iii) Nature of income /loss does not change by issuance of notification. (3) Appellant craves leave to add / alter any grounds of appeal. Profit of future option business for the whole year be considered as such and unabsorbed b/f loss from such business be allowed to set off to the extent of income and assessment be revised accordingly. 2. The only issue involved in this appeal is about the treatment to be given to profit earned from future and option transactions, whether to be treated as speculative transaction as against business transaction treated by the assessee. The assessee is salaried employee and deriv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o retrospective. iii) No intention of the legislation to withdraw benefit of set off of loss out of such trade. iv) In future option trade, basic ingredients of speculation transaction are lacking hence of non-speculative in nature. v) Your honour s attention is invited to - a) ACIT vs. Shreegopal Purohit (2009) 33 SOT (Mum) b) P.S. Kapoor vs. ACIT (2009) SOT 587/120 TTJ 422(Jp) vi) The term derivatives is not included in commodity in the legislation. vii) No such recognition for commodity trading exchange. The ld. CIT(A) relied on the decision of the Tribunal (Special Bench) Kolkata in the case of Shree Capital Services Ltd. 121 ITD 498 for holding that transactions in future options are speculative till ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t only the eligible transactions on recognized stock exchanges. Rules 6DDA 6DDB which deal with recognized stock exchanges were inserted w.e.f. 1.7.2005. Consequently, it applies only to Asst. Year 2006-07 onwards. Note : The decisions in SSKI Investors 113 TTJ 511 (Mum), RBK Securities 118 TTJ 465 (Mum), P.S.Kapur 120 TTJ 422 (Jp) and others are impliedly overruled. Following the decision of Special Bench, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the order of the AO. 3. We have heard the parties. In our considered view there is no case for interference in the order of ld. CIT(A) who followed the Special Bench judgment which is also binding on this Bench. No contrary material or judgment of higher court is brought into our notice so as to ena ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
