As Regards The First Question, Learned Counsel For The Parties State That The Said Question Is Covered Against The Assessee By The Decision Of This Court In The v. The Appeal Is Disposed Of Accordingly. No Order As To Costs
High Court
19 Apr 2011 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
As Regards The First Question, Learned Counsel For The Parties State That The Said Question Is Covered Against The Assessee By The Decision Of This Court In The v. The Appeal Is Disposed Of Accordingly. No Order As To Costs
Date of order
19 Apr 2011
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In As Regards The First Question, Learned Counsel For The Parties State That The Said Question Is Covered Against The Assessee By The Decision Of This Court In The v. The Appeal Is Disposed Of Accordingly. No Order As To Costs, the High Court (2011) decided the matter under Section 73 of the Income-tax Act.
Decision: 3.The Appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Sections referenced in this judgment
Dmt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 1533 OF 2010
Goldlife Financial Services
Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai.
..Appellant.
Vs.Income-Tax Officer 3(2)(1).Mumbai...Respondent.
Mr. Nishant Thakkar i/by Mint & Confrers for the Appellant.Mr. Vimal Gupta for Respondent.
CORAM : J.P. DEVADHAR AND A.A. SAYED, JJ.
P.C.
DATE : 19TH APRIL, 2011.
1.The following two questions are raised by the Appellant in this appeal.
A.Whether on the facts and in law was right in holding that the transactions of trading in futures and options could be regarded as speculative transactions for the purposes of section 43(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961?
B. Whether on the facts and in law not allowing to set-off the loss from transactions of trading in futures and options ignoring the provisions of Explanation of section 73 of the Income-tax Act, 1961?
2.As regards the first question, learned counsel for the parties state that the said question is covered against the assessee by the decision of this Court in the case CIT vs. Bharat R. Raut, Tax Appeal No. 1539 of 2010 decided on 18[th] April, 2010. Accordingly, the first question raised by the Appellant cannot be entertained. As regards the second question is concerned, learned counsel for the parties state that in light of the decision of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Lokmat Newspapers (P) Ltd.,reported in (2010) 322 ITR 43, the question may be remitted back to the ITAT for decision of the same in the light of the said decision. Accordingly, the second question is remitted back to the ITAT for de novo consideration.
3.The Appeal is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.
( A.A. SAYED, J. )
(J.P. DEVADHAR, J.)
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation.
Full disclaimer & Terms.
EaseValue