TMI Blog2013 (8) TMI 1015X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the instant case. He will also dealt with the assessee’s contention on the applicability of proviso (a) to section 43(5) if the case is found to be falling in proviso (d) to section 43(5). Without prejudice ground taken by the assessee about the direction to the Assessing Officer to allow set off of the alleged speculation loss against profit arising to the assessee in similar transaction in subsequent year, is clearly not acceptable because firstly we have not upheld the view of the Revenue in treating the loss of ₹ 1.99 crore as speculation and secondly subsequent assessment year is not before us. Disallowance on account of exchange rate fluctuation - Held that:- The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Woodward Governor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 77; 1.99 crore from hedging in crude oil. On being called upon to explain as to why this loss should not be treated as speculation loss, the assessee furnished submissions which have been reproduced on pages 2 onwards of the order. The assessee s claim that the loss from hedging is not a speculative loss as per proviso (a) to section 43(5), was not accepted by the Assessing Officer. He in turn applied proviso (d) to section 43(5) to negative the assessees contention by holding that transactions in respect of trading in derivatives which have not deemed to be speculative transaction, must be carried out through a recognized stock exchange. Since MCX came to be notified as recognized stock exchange for the purpose of section 43(5) from 22. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onsidered by the Assessing Officer as per law and facts of the instant case. He will also dealt with the assessee s contention on the applicability of proviso (a) to section 43(5) if the case is found to be falling in proviso (d) to section 43(5). Without prejudice ground taken by the assessee about the direction to the Assessing Officer to allow set off of the alleged speculation loss against profit arising to the assessee in similar transaction in subsequent year, is clearly not acceptable because firstly we have not upheld the view of the Revenue in treating the loss of ₹ 1.99 crore as speculation and secondly subsequent assessment year is not before us. 5. The only other ground is against the disallowance of ₹ 62,62,090 o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sale transaction entered during the year, which has been duly accepted as taxable by the authorities below. In such a situation and respectfully following the precedent rendered by the Hon ble Supreme Court, we are of the considered opinion that the assessee deserves deduction of ₹ 62.62 lakh. Before parting with this ground we would like to mention that the learned CIT(A) has made certain observations which are not relevant to this case. Firstly in para 6.2.2, he mentioned that the assessee is engaged in the business of manufacture and export of diamonds and in respect of export of diamonds, the assessee has entered into forward contract in respect of foreign exchange to be received as a result of export. Contrary to it the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
