Income Tax : Understand Section 43 of the IBC, covering preferential transactions, antecedent debt, look-back periods for related and unrelated...
Income Tax : Learn about taxation on derivatives and F&O transactions, their treatment as business income, audit requirements, and presumptive ...
Income Tax : Explore conflicting rulings on whether bonafide mistakes in disclosing foreign assets under the Black Money Act can avoid penaltie...
Income Tax : F&O traders need to know how their profits are taxed. With the ITR return filing date approaching, it is imperative to know how st...
Income Tax : Explore the impact of Finance Act, 2023, on MSME payment enforcement under section 43B(h) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Understand ...
Income Tax : ITAT held that goodwill arising on amalgamation qualifies as a depreciable intangible asset. It also deleted the TP adjustment on ...
Income Tax : ITAT upheld taxation of IPS and CEV subsidies following the Section 2(24) amendment, while partly allowing the appeal on other iss...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held that Rule 11UA gives the assessee the exclusive option to choose the valuation method for unquoted shares. While...
Income Tax : The ITAT Kolkata held that electricity supplied by captive power plants should be benchmarked using the tariff charged by State El...
Income Tax : ITAT Ahmedabad held that penalty under Section 43 of the Black Money Act could not be imposed when foreign assets were subsequentl...
Income Tax : Notification No. 8/2020-Income-Tax- CBDT has notified Other electronic modes by inserting New Income TAx Rule 6ABBA. It also amend...
Income Tax : Notification No. 15/2014-Income Tax entral Government hereby notifies the Ace Derivatives and Commodity Exchange Limited, Ahmedaba...
In the case of ACE India Medical Systems Vs. ACIT Jaipur Bench of ITAT held that from the bare reading of the section 43 (5) (d) it is prima facie clear that Section 43(5)(d) is for trading in derivatives not trading of shares.
In the case of M/s. Majestic Exports vs. JCIT, ITAT Chennai held that the loss in the transactions of the forex derivatives contracts will be considered to be the business loss and the same can be set off against the business income.
In the present case, it is an admitted fact that the assessee was engaged in the business of dealing in shares & securities and has incurred loss from dealing in derivatives (shares futures). It is not the case of the AO that the share futures in which the assessee was dealing were not recorded in recognized Stock Exchange, the loss incurred by the assessee was also not disputed by the AO.
Notification No. 15/2014-Income Tax entral Government hereby notifies the Ace Derivatives and Commodity Exchange Limited, Ahmedabad as a recognised association for the purposes of clause (e) of the proviso to clause (5) of the section 43(5), with effect from the date of publication of this notification in the Official Gazette.
This proviso makes it very clear that any profit or loss on account of jobbing will not be in the nature of speculation profit or speculation loss. Thus, even if it is accepted that the loss suffered by the appellant was on account of self-trading in view of proviso (c) to section 43(5) such loss cannot be treated as speculation loss.
In view of above order and respectfully following the decision of Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal (supra), we decide Ground No.2 of the appeal in favour of assessee. Accordingly, we hold that the income arising from transaction in derivative by assessee(s), being sub-account FII cannot be treated as business profit or loss.
Did the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) fall into error in not holding that the loss of Rs. 4,92,71,000/- on account of derivative transaction was a speculative loss, and was entitled to the benefit of Section 73, in view of the Explanation to Section 73 of the Income Tax Act
On the question whether an Assessee is entitled to adjust the actual cost of imported assets acquired in foreign currency on account of fluctuation in the rate of exchange at the time of making PAYMENT towards the whole or part of cost of the asset or towards repayment of whole or a part of the moneys borrowed by him from any person directly or indirectly, in any foreign currency specifically for the purpose of acquiring the asset along with interest, if any.
Learned counsel for the Revenue stated that said decision of this Court was not carried in appeal on the ground that it involved tax effect lower than what is prescribed by the CBDT in circular dated 9.2.2011 permitting the Revenue to carry such appeal before the Supreme Court. Counsel for the Revenue was unable to point out any factual distinction between the two cases.
Opining that the amendment of Section 43A of the Act by the Finance Act, 2002 with effect from 1st April, 2003 is amendatory and not clarificatory and would thus, apply prospectively, the Court explained that under the unamended Section 43A, adjustment to the actual cost takes place on the happening of change in the rate of exchange, whereas under the amended Section 43A,
