TMI Blog2015 (6) TMI 811X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t accept the same and treated the same as speculative in nature and therefore, disallowed the same. Therefore, it was a bonafide claim made on behalf of the assessee which was not accepted by the AO. All particulars in respect of the loss were found to be correct. Only point of contention was that the appellant had treated loss from derivative transactions as normal business loss whereas the AO held it to be speculative in nature. It is a case of bonafide claim in respect of an item where the law was not very clear, this is evident from decisions of various tribunals quoted by the appellant which were in its favour. This is a case of difference of opinion and not a case of mala fide claim of wrong deduction. Ratio of decision of Hon'ble ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... om A.Y. 2006-07 conclusively proves that the derivative transactions are in the nature of speculative transactions till A.Y. 2005-06? 2. That the assessee filed his return of income for the year in consideration declaring total loss of ₹ 1,47,86,566/-. That during the assessment the assessee claimed a net loss of ₹ 1,52,23,713/- on account of derivative trading and the said loss was set-off with business and other sources of income. While finalizing the assessment, the AO treated the loss as speculative loss and consequently speculative loss of ₹ 1,70,95,625/- which was debited under normal business income was disallowed by the AO and penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act were directed to be initiated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... osed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the Revenue has preferred the present Tax Appeal to consider the aforesaid proposed substantial question of law. 3. Shri Parikh, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant has vehemently submitted that learned ITAT has materially erred in deleting the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. It is submitted that as such the assessee was very much aware and/or he know the fact that the derivative transactions were in the nature of speculative transactions and still he treated the speculative loss on derivative transactions as business loss and set-off / adjusted the same against income from other sources and tried to evade the tax. It is submitted that therefore the AO was jus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... put forth by the AR. I am in agreement with the AR of the appellant that it is not a case of filing inaccurate particulars of income by the appellant. All particulars in respect of the loss were found to be correct. Only point of contention was that the appellant had treated loss from derivative transactions as normal business loss whereas the AO held it to be speculative in nature. It is a case of bonafide claim in respect of an item where the law was not very clear, this is evident from decisions of various tribunals quoted by the appellant which were in its favour. This is a case of difference of opinion and not a case of mala fide claim of wrong deduction. Ratio of decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Reliance Petroprod ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
