Ashok R. Ruia (Huf), Appellant Vs Income-Tax Officer -18(2)(4), Mumbai

¶1

704-14-itxa=.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶3

INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 704 OF 2014

¶4

Ashok R. Ruia (HUF) Mumbai .. Appellant v/s. The Income-Tax Officer-18(2)(4), Mumbai .. Respondent

¶5

Mr. Harsh Kothari a/w Mr. Atul Jasani for the appellant Mr. Tejveer Singh for the respondent

¶6

CORAM : M.S. SANKLECHA & G.S.KULKARNI, J.J. DATED : 5^th OCTOBER, 2016.

¶7

P.C.

¶8

This Appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) challenges the order dated 26^th July, 2013 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal). The impugned order is in respect of Assessment Year 2005-06.

¶9

The appellant assessee urges following questions of law for our consideration :-

¶10

(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in alw, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the losses incurred on account of transactions in derivatives were speculative in nature and could not be regarded as business loss?

1 of 2

Uday S. Jagtap

704-14-itxa=.doc

(ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the amendments made to Section 43(5) by insertion of clause (d) with effect from 1^st April, 2006 would apply to such transactions undertaken in the assessment year 2005-06?

¶15

Mr. Kothari, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant assessee very fairly states that both the questions raised in the present appeal stand concluded against the assessee by the decision of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Bharat R. Ruia (HUF), 337, ITR 452 .

¶16

In the above view, as the proposed questions are concluded by the decision of this Court in Bharat R. Ruia (supra), they do not give rise to any substantial question of law. Thus, not entertained.

¶17

The appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶18

(G.S. KULKARNI, J.) (M.S. SANKLECHA, J.)

¶19

2 of 2

¶20

Uday S. Jagtap

Ashok R. Ruia (Huf), Appellant v. Income-Tax Officer -18(2)(4), Mumbai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashok R. Ruia (Huf), Appellant v. Income-Tax Officer -18(2)(4), Mumbai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S. G.T.C. Industries Ltd. Vs the C.I.T.Central-I Bombay.

The Commissioner of Income Tax - Thane -1 Vs M/S.Vidhi Builders

the commissioner of income-tax-11,mum Vs m/s abraxas media Pvt. Ltd.

The Commissioner of Income Tax-Ii, Pune Vs M/S. a. v. Bhat Developers

The Commissioner of Income-Tax-Ii.Pune Vs Smt.Vinaya Vikrant Patil

The Commissioner of Income Tax - Ii, Pune Vs Shri Shrikant S. Mahale