P. P. Holding Ltd. v. Asst. Commissioner of Income-tax
[Citation -2015-LL-0109-114]

Citation 2015-LL-0109-114
Appellant Name P. P. Holding Ltd.
Respondent Name Asst. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 09/01/2015
Assessment Year 2005-06
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags derivative trading • speculative transaction • substantial question of law
Bot Summary: 2) According to the Assessee's Counsel Mr. Naniwadekar, this Appeal raises substantial questions of law. Upon his attention being invited to the Judgment of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Bharat R. Ruia reported in 337 ITR 452, he submits that despite this Judgment, there are certain issues which could be raised and which are not covered by this Judgment. 3) Mr. Suresh Kumar appearing for the Department/Revenue would urge that the Judgment of this Court in the case of Bharat R. Ruia concludes all issues and against the Assessee. 2013.16.doc 4) Having perused the Judgment of the Tribunal we find that the Assessing Officer, during the course of assessment, found that the Assessee has shown a loss of derivative trading at Rs.4,24,49,729/ and held that it is the substantive loss. The transactions shown by the Assessee in the P L account are in the nature of speculative transactions as defined under section 43(5) of the Income Tax Act. 5) Precisely, this is the controversy dealt with in the case of Bharat R. Ruia. Such hairsplitting of binding precedent cannot be entertained.


ITXA.266.2013.16.doc IN HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 266 OF 2013 M/s. P. P. Holding Ltd. } Appellant versus Asst. Commissioner of Income tax } Respondent Mr. Mihir Naniwadekar for Appellant. Mr. Suresh Kumar for Respondent. CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI & S.P.DESHMUKH, JJ. DATED : JANUARY 9, 2015 P.C. : This Appeal challenges order passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 28th August, 2012. That order is passed in Income Tax Appeal No. 809/PN/2009, for assessment year 2005 06. 2) According to Assessee's Counsel Mr. Naniwadekar, this Appeal raises substantial questions of law. However, upon his attention being invited to Judgment of this Court in case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Bharat R. Ruia (HUF) reported in (2011) 337 ITR 452 (Bom.), he submits that despite this Judgment, there are certain issues which could be raised and which are not covered by this Judgment. 3) Mr. Suresh Kumar appearing for Department/Revenue would urge that Judgment of this Court in case of Bharat R. Ruia (supra) concludes all issues and against Assessee. Page 1 of 2 J.V.Salunke,PA ::: Uploaded on - 13/01/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 30/06/2020 10:54:43 ::: ITXA.266.2013.16.doc 4) Having perused Judgment of Tribunal we find that Assessing Officer, during course of assessment, found that Assessee has shown loss of derivative trading at Rs.4,24,49,729/ and held that it is substantive loss. transactions shown by Assessee in P & L account are in nature of speculative transactions as defined under section 43(5) of Income Tax Act. They do not fall in any of exemption given in proviso to section 43(5) of Act. 5) Precisely, this is controversy dealt with in case of Bharat R. Ruia (supra). We cannot ignore binding precedent of this Court by entertaining argument that Division Bench did not have benefit of complete argument or that though transactions were derivative trading, there was element in it which would not make it speculative. Such hairsplitting of binding precedent cannot be entertained. We cannot brush aside binding precedent. 6) In view of above discussion, we do not find that Appeal raises any substantial question of law. it is accordingly dismissed. (S.P.DESHMUKH, J.) (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J.) Page 2 of 2 J.V.Salunke,PA ::: Uploaded on - 13/01/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 30/06/2020 10:54:43 ::: P. P. Holding Ltd. v. Asst. Commissioner of Income-tax
Report Error