The Commissioner Of Income-Tax - 16 v. Shri Arun V.mule
High Court
09 Nov 2011 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income-Tax - 16 v. Shri Arun V.mule
Date of order
09 Nov 2011
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Allowed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Income-Tax - 16 v. Shri Arun V.mule, the High Court (2011) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL No. 6955 of 2010.
The Commissioner of Income-tax - 16
... Appellant.
Versus
Shri Arun V.Mule
... Respondent.
Ms P.S. Cardozo, for the appellant.Mr Atul K. Jasani, for the respondent.
CORAM : J.P. Devadhar & A.R. Joshi, JJ.
DATE : 9[th] November,2011.
P.C. :-
1.Heard. Admit on the following question of law :-
(a) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Hon’ble Tribunal is justified in law in holding and deciding that section 43 (5) of the act is not applicable to the trading in ‘derivatives’ and that a loss in such trading is not a ‘speculative loss’ and thereby directing the A.O., to treat the loss of Rs.35,09,248/- as normal business loss allowed to be ‘set off’ against the other head of income?
2.By consent, appeal is taken up for final hearing.
3.Counsel for the parties state that the question raised in this appeal is covered
against the assessee by the decision of this Court in the case of Commissioner of
Income-Tax vs. Bharat R Ruia (HUF) reported in (2011) 377 ITR 452. Accordingly, appeal is disposed off by answering the question raised in this appeal in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.
(A.R.Joshi,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.