M/s. Majestic Exports vs. JCIT (ITAT Chennai)

Posted on July 27, 2015 — No Comments ↓

COURT:	ITAT Chennai
CORAM:	Chandra Poojari (AM), V. Durga Rao (JM)
SECTION(S):	43(5)
GENRE:	Domestic Tax
CATCH WORDS:	derivatives, speculative loss
COUNSEL:	T. Banusekar
DATE:	July 24, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE:	July 27, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY:	2009-10, 2010-11
FILE:	Click here to download the file in pdf format
CITATION:
Loss suffered on account of forex derivative contracts (Exotic Cross Currency Option Contracts) cannot be treated as speculative loss to the extent that the derivative transactions are not more than the total export turnover of the assessee. If the derivative transaction is in excess of export turnover, the loss in respect of that portion of excess transactions has to be considered as speculative loss because the excess derivative transaction has no proximity with export turnover

The assessee was engaged in the business of manufacturing and export of hosiery garments. During the course of export, the assessee entered into derivative contract

. The assessee incurred loss in this transaction. The assessee claimed it as business loss. According to the Assessing Officer this loss was not business loss and it is a speculative loss and this transaction is speculative in nature as such the loss incurred on this transaction cannot be set off against business income of the assessee. On appeal by the assessee HELD:

(i) The derivative transaction cannot fall under sec.73. Explanation to sec.73 creates a deeming fiction by which among the assessee, who is a company, as indicated in the said Explanation dealing with the transaction of share and suffer loss, such loss should be treated to be speculative transaction within the meaning of sec.73 of the Act, notwithstanding the fact that the definition of speculative transaction mentioned in sec.43(5) of the Act, the transaction is not of that nature as there has been actual delivery of the scrips of share. As per the definition of sec.43(5), trading of shares which is done by taking delivery does not come under the purview of the said section. Similarly, as per clause (d) of sec.43(5), derivative transaction in shares is also not speculation transaction as defined in the said section. Therefore, both profit/loss from all the share delivery transactions and derivative transactions are having the same meaning, so far as sec.43(5) of the Act is concerned. Again, in view of the fact that both delivery transactions and derivative transactions are non-speculative as far as sec.43(5) is concerned, it follows that both will have the same treatment as far as application of Explanation to sec.73 is concerned. Therefore, aggregation of the share trading profit and loss from derivative transactions should be done before the Explanation to sec.73 is applied. The above view has been taken by Special Bench of this Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, in the case of CIT v. Concord Commercial Pvt. Ltd. (2005) 95 ITD 117 (Mum)(SB).

(ii) From the above, it is concluded that both trading of shares and derivative transactions are not coming under the purview of Section 43(5) of the Act which provides definition of "speculative transaction" exclusively for purposes of section 28 to 41 of the Act. Again, the fact that both delivery based transaction in shares and derivative transactions are non-speculative as far as section 43(5) is concerned goes to confirm that both will have same treatment as regards application of the Explanation to Section 73 is concerned, which creates a deeming fiction. Now, before application of the said Explanation, aggregation of the business profit/loss is to be worked out irrespective of the fact, whether it is from share delivery transaction or derivative transaction (Aishwarya & Co P. Ltd in ITA No.860/Mds/2014, dated 29.05.2015 and Baljit Securities Pvt. Ltd. (88 CCH 313) followed);

(iii) However, we make it clear that total transaction considered for determining this business loss from derivative transactions cannot be more than the total export turnover of the assessee for the assessment year under consideration and if the derivative transaction is in excess of export turnover, then that loss suffered in respect of that portion of excess transactions to be considered as speculative loss only as that excess derivative transaction has no proximity with export turnover and the Assessing Officer is directed to compute accordingly.

Related Judgements

DCIT vs. Baljit Securities Private Limited (ITAT Kolkata)
(i) Both trading of shares and derivative transactions are not coming under the purview of Section 43(5) of the Act which provides definition of "speculative transaction" exclusively for purposes of section 28 to 41 of the Act. Again, the fact…Read more ›
ITO vs. Emperor International Ltd (ITAT Delhi)
Now question arises as to whether the loss suffered by the assessee on derivative was to be treated as a speculative loss or to be set off against the regular business profit. Explanation to clause (d) of Sub-section (5) to Section 43 of the Act provides that eligible transaction…
IVF Advisors Private Limited vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai)
"Derivatives" include foreign currency call option/ put option. These transactions are of derivative markets and cannot be termed as speculative in natureRead more ›
CIT vs. Baljeet Securities Pvt. Ltd (Calcutta High Court)
Expl to s. 73: Speculation loss on transactions in derivatives can be set off against the gains of delivery shares

Under the Explanation to s. 73 where any part of the business of a company consists in the purchase and sale of shares of other companies, such company shall, for…
ACIT vs. Dinesh K. Mehta HUF (ITAT Mumbai)
The argument of the assessee that to constitute a hedging transaction u/s 43(5)(b), a transaction need not be in the same shares held by the assessee as inventory or that the value of hedging transactions should be equal to or less than the value of inventory held by the…