As Regards The First Questions Is Concerned, Counsel For The Parties State That Said Question Stands Answered Against The Revenue By The Decision Of This Court v. Lokmat Newspaper (P.) Ltd. Reported In 322 Itr 43. Hence, The First Question Cannot Be Entertained

K IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.6678 OF 2010 The Commissioner of Income Tax-4Vs.Active Finstock Ltd. .. Appellant .. Respondent. Mr.Vimal Gupta for the Appellant.Mr. Aturl K. Jasani for the Respondent. CORAM: J.P. DEVADHAR & K.K. TATED, JJ.DATE: 19TH SEPTEMBER, 2011. P.C. Two questions of law raised by the Revenue in this Appeal read thus A)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal was justified in allowing current year speculation loss to be set-off against current year share-trading profit on account of the deeming provisions of Explanation to Section 73 of the Income Tax Act? B)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal was justified in holding that loss from derivative transactions is to be treated as non-speculative business loss and not speculative loss as held by the Assessing Officer? 2As regards the first questions is concerned, counsel for the parties state that said question stands answered against the Revenue by the decision of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Lokmat Newspaper (P.) Ltd. reported in 322 ITR 43. Hence, the first question cannot be entertained. 3As regards the second question is concerned, counsel for the parties state that the said question does not arise out of the order of the High Court. Thus, the second question does not arise. 4Accordingly, the present Appeal is disposed of with no order as to costs. (J.P. DEVADHAR, J.) (K.K. TATED, J.)