DCIT, New Delhi V. M/s Flora & Fauna Housing and Land Developers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 4191/DEL/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 116 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7823 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-07-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 08-05-2017
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 03-08-2012
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH B : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.4191/DEL./2012 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10) DCIT, CIRCLE 11 (1), VS. M/S. FLORA & FAUNA HOUSIN G AND NEW DELHI. DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., 194 A, POCKET C, SIDDHARTH EXTENSION, NEW DELHI 110 014. (PAN : AABCF0441Q) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI G.C. SRIVASTAVA, ADVOCATE SHRI SUVINAY K. DASH, ADVOCATE SHRI PARICHAY SOLANKI, CA REVENUE BY : MS. ASHIMA NEB, SENIOR DR DATE OF HEARING : 15.07.2019 DATE OF ORDER : 22.07.2019 O R D E R PER KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER : APPELLANT, DCIT, CIRCLE 11 (1), NEW DELHI (HEREINA FTER REFERRED TO AS THE ASSESSEE) BY FILING THE PRESEN T APPEAL SOUGHT TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 28.05.2012 PASSE D BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-XIII, NEW DELH I QUA THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 ON THE GROUNDS INTER ALIA T HAT :- ITA NO.4191/DEL./2012 2 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DIRECTING THE AO T O TREAT DERIVATIVE TRADING LOSS AS BUSINESS LOSS AS P ER PROVISIONS OF CLAUSE (C) AND (D) OF SUBSECTION (5) OF SECTION 43 AND ALSO ALLOWED TO SET OFF THE SAME AGA INST OTHER BUSINESS INCOME. 2. THE LEARNED CIT(A) FURTHER ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT EXPLANATION TO SECTION 7 3 OF THE I.T. ACT CAN OVERRIDE THE PROVISION OF SECTION 43(5) OF THE LT. ACT, WHICH IS CLEARLY ATTRACTED IN ASSES SEE'S CASE. 2. BRIEFLY STATED THE FACTS NECESSARY FOR ADJUDICAT ION OF THE CONTROVERSY AT HAND ARE : ASSESSEE COMPANY IS INTO THE BUSINESS OF DISTRIBUTION OF ALCOHOLIC LIQUOR. ASSESSMENT WAS F RAMED FOR AY 2009-10 AT THE LOSS OF (-) RS.2,08,52,679/- ON FUTU RE & OPTION (F&O) DERIVATIVE TRANSACTIONS AS SPECULATIVE LOSS A ND DISALLOWANCE OF SET OFF OF SUCH LOSS AGAINST BUSINESS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) HAS TREATED TRADING IN DERIV ATIVE AS SPECULATION IN NATURE AND LOSS OF DERIVATIVES TRADI NG OF RS.2,08,52,679/- HAS NOT ALLOWED TO BE SET OFF AGAI NST THE BUSINESS INCOME FROM THE DISTRIBUTION OF ALCOHOLIC LIQUOR RA THER ALLOWED THE SAME TO BE CARRIED FORWARD FOR ADJUSTMENT AGAIN ST SPECULATIVE PROFIT, IF ANY DERIVED IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEARS AND THEREBY MADE AN ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF SPECULATION OF LOSS IN SHARE TRADING AT RS.2,08,52,679/-. ITA NO.4191/DEL./2012 3 3. ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BY WAY OF AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A) WHO HAS PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL. FEE LING AGGRIEVED, THE REVENUE HAS COME UP BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL BY WAY OF FILING THE PRESENT APPEAL. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PARTIES TO THE APPEAL, GONE THROUGH THE DOCUMENTS R ELIED UPON AND ORDERS PASSED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES BELOW IN T HE LIGHT OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 5. LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE CHALLENGING THE IMPUGNED ORDER CONTENDED INTER ALIA THAT THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN TRADING LOSS ON F&O DERIVATIVE TRADING AS BUSINESS LOSS AND ALLOWIN G THE SAME TO BE SET OFF AGAINST THE PROFIT EARNED BY THE ASSESSE E FROM OTHER BUSINESS INCOME DERIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM DISTRI BUTION AND TRADING OF ALCOHOLIC LIQUOR; THAT SECTION 73 EXPLAN ATION 2 IS A DEEMING PROVISION WHICH OVERRIDES SECTION 43(5)(C) AND (D); THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY SOLD CERTAIN SHARES THEN PURCH ASED THE SAME SHARES FOR THE SAME PRICE AND ARTIFICIAL LOSS HAS B EEN CREATED WHICH NO PRUDENT BUSINESSMEN WILL DO AND RELIED UPON THE DECISION RENDERED BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH IN CIT- I, INDORE VS. INTERMETAL TRADE LTD. (2006) 285 ITR 536 (MP) . 6. HOWEVER, ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. AR FOR THE ASSES SEE TO REPEL THE ARGUMENTS ADDRESSED BY THE LD. DR FOR THE REVEN UE CONTENDED ITA NO.4191/DEL./2012 4 INTER ALIA THAT THE AO HAS RELIED UPON THE DECISION S RENDERED PRIOR TO THE AMENDMENT MADE BY FINANCE ACT, 2005 W.E.F. 0 1.04.2006 WHICH DEALS WITH TRADING IN DERIVATIVES ONLY; THAT SECTION 73 EXPLANATION 1 RELIED UPON BY THE LD. DR FOR THE REV ENUE DOES NOT TALK OF F&O AND RELIED UPON THE DECISION RENDERED B Y HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN CIT, CITY 4 VS. HSBC SECURITIES & CAPITAL MARKETS INDIA (P.) LTD. (2012) 23 TAXMANN.COM 377 ( BOM.) AND COORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN CASE OF ITO VS. M/S. EMPEROR INTERNATIONAL LTD. IN ITA NO.2181/DEL/2012 ORDER DA TED 27.05.2015 . LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE ALSO RELIED UPON THE IMP UGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT (A). 7. UNDISPUTEDLY, THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS SOLD OUT DERIVATIVE TRADING IN SHARES DURING THE YEAR UNDER ASSESSMENT AS UNDER :- NAME OF SCRIP DATE OF PURCHASE NO. OF SHARES AMOUNT (RS.) DATE OF SALE NO. OF SHARES AMOUNT 23.01.09 77,625 13,41,77,064 15.01.09 65,025 11,64 ,41,055 13.02.09 29,400 5,71,39,851 19.01.09 12,600 2,49,9 1,596 16.02.09 44,550 8,90,24,243 30.01.09 62,025 9,96,8 4,099 24.02.09 2,400 38,40,960 02.02.09 14,325 2,22,93,2 31 TOTAL 1,53,975 28,41,82,218 1,53,975 26,34,10,031 8. IN THE BACKDROP OF THE AFORESAID FACTS AND CIRCU MSTANCES OF THE CASE, ARGUMENTS ADDRESSED BY THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PARTIES TO THE APPEAL, ORDER PASSED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES AND CASE LAWS RELIED UPON, THE SOLE QUESTION ARISES FOR DETERMINATION IN THIS CASE IS :- ITA NO.4191/DEL./2012 5 AS TO WHETHER TRANSACTION OF F&O DERIVATIVE TRADIN G ARE COVERED UNDER CLAUSE (C) & (D) OF SECTION 43(5) OF THE ACT AND SUCH TRANSACTIONS IF CARRIED OUT IN RECOGNISED STOCK EXCHANGE ARE NOT TO BE TREATED AS SPECULATIVE TRANSACTION? 9. IT IS THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT ASSESSEE COM PANY HAS MADE TRADING OF F&O DERIVATIVES THROUGH M/S. DB (INTERNA TIONAL) BROKERS LTD., GURGAON, A BRANCH OF NATIONAL STOCK E XCHANGE FOR DOING F&O TRANSACTION IS COVERED UNDER CBDT CIRCULA R NO.2/2006 DATED 25.01.2006. ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS BROUGHT ON RECORD ENTIRE DETAILS AND CONTRACT NOTES OF TRANSACTION DONE IN F &O DERIVATIVE TRADING BEFORE AO ALONG WITH COPIES OF LEDGER ACCOU NTS RUNNING WITH THE BROKERS TO SUPPORTS ITS CONTENTIONS. 10. LD. CIT (A) DECIDED THE ISSUE IN QUESTION IN FA VOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY RELYING UPON THE DECISION RENDERED IN SMT, SEEMA JAIN VS. ACIT 6 ITR (TRIB) 488 (DEL.) WHEREIN IT IS HELD THAT THE TRADING IN DERIVATIVES THROUGH A RECOGNISED STOCK EXCHANGE W.E.F. 01.04.2006 SHALL NOT BE DEEMED TO BE SPECULATIVE TR ADING. IN THE INSTANT CASE, NATIONAL STOCK EXCHANGE WAS RECOGNISE D AS STOCK EXCHANGE BY VIRTUE OF THE CBDT CIRCULAR NO.2/2006 D ATED 25.01.2006. SIMILARLY, IN CASE CITED AS G.K. ANAND BROS. BUILDWELL (P.) LTD. VS. ITO (2009) 34 SOT 439 (DELH I) , THE ISSUE ITA NO.4191/DEL./2012 6 IN CONTROVERSY HAS BEEN DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE AS SESSEE BY RETURNING FOLLOWING FINDINGS:- SECTION 43 (5) DEFINES SPECULATIVE TRANSACTION W HICH MEANS A TRANSACTION IN WHICH A CONTRACT FOR THE PURCHASE OR SALE OF ANY COMMODITY INCLUDING STOCKS AND SHARES IS PERIODICAL OR ULTIMATELY SETTLED OTHERWISE THAN BY THE ACTUAL DELIVERY OR TH E TRANSFER OF COMMODITY OR SCRIPS. PROVISO BELOW SECTION 43 (5) CARVES OUT EXCEPTIONS TO SECTION 43 (5). AS PER CLAUSE (D) OF THE SAID PROVISO AN ELIGIBLE TRANSACTION IN RESPECT OF TRADING IN D ERIVATIVES REFERRED TO IN THE SECURITIES CONTRACTS (REGULATION ) ACT, 1956 CARRIED OUT IN A RECOGNIZED STOCK EXCHANGE SHALL NO T BE DEEMED TO BE A SPECULATIVE TRANSACTION. CLAUSE (D) IN TH E PROVISO WAS INSERTED BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2005 WITH EFFECT FROM 1-4-2006. THEREFORE, IF A TRANSACTION FALLS WITHIN CLAUSE (D) OF THE PROVISO IT WILL NOT BE DEEMED TO BE A SPECULATIVE TRANSACTION IN RESPECT OF TRANSACTION PERTAINING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006- 07. UNDER CLAUSE (D) OF THE PROVISO, A TRANSACTION IS NOT A S PECULATIVE TRANSACTION PROVIDED IT IS AN ELIGIBLE TRANSACTION WITHIN THE MEANING OF CLAUSE (I) OF THE EXPLANATION AND IT IS CARRIED ON AT THE RECOGNIZED STOCK EXCHANGE AS EXPLAINED IN CLAUS E (II) OF THE SAID EXPLANATION BELOW PROVISO TO SECTION 43(5)(D). THE RECOGNIZED STOCK EXCHANGE MEANS A RECOGNISED STOCK EXCHANGE AS NOTIFIED BY THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT FOR THIS PURP OSE. THEREFORE, EVEN IF THE NOTIFICATION IS FROM 25-1-20 06 AS PER CLAUSE (D) INSERTED, THE SAME WILL APPLY TO ALL THE TRANSACTIONS IN RELATION TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 AND ONWARDS . CLAUSE (D) DOES NOT MENTION THAT UNLESS THE RECOGNIZED STOCK E XCHANGE IS NOTIFIED, THE TRANSACTION WILL NOT BE DEEMED TO BE A SPECULATIVE TRANSACTION. THE POWER TO NOTIFY THE STOCK EXCHANG E IS GRANTED UNDER THE STATUTE AND, HENCE, ONCE THE RECOGNIZED S TOCK EXCHANGE IS NOTIFIED, THE SAME WILL APPLY IN RESPECT OF ALL ELIGIBLE TRANSACTIONS CARRIED OUT IN RELATION TO THE FINANCI AL YEAR RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 AND ONWARDS. THE NO TIFICATION DATED 25.1.2006 IS BY WAY OF A SUBORDINATED LEGISLA TION BUT CANNOT OVERRIDE THE PRINCIPAL LEGISLATION ENACTED B Y THE PARLIAMENT. IT ONLY CLARIFIES BUT WILL NOT OVERRID E UNLESS STATUTORILY SO PRESCRIBED. SINCE THERE WAS NO DISP UTE TO THE FACT THAT THE TRANSACTIONS, IN THE INSTANT CASE, IN FUTU RE AND OPTION SEGMENT WERE THE ELIGIBLE TRANSACTIONS CARRIED OUT IN A RECOGNIZED STOCK EXCHANGE, LOSS IN SUCH TRANSACTIONS COULD NOT BE DEEMED TO BE LOSS IN THE SPECULATION BUSINESS. THEREFORE, TH E LOSS-IN- QUESTION WAS TO BE TREATED AS A BUSINESS LOSS AND N OT AS LOSS IN SPECULATION BUSINESS. ITA NO.4191/DEL./2012 7 11. IN THE CASE OF R.B.K. SECURITIES (P.) LTD. VS. ITO 118 TTJ (MUM.) 465 , COORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL ALSO HELD THAT DEALING IN DERIVATIVES IS A SEPARATE KIND OF TRANSA CTION WHICH DOES NOT INVOLVE PURCHASE AND SALE OF SHARES AND AS SUCH LOSS ON ACCOUNT OF DERIVATIVE TRADING CANNOT BE TREATED AS SPECULAT IVE LOSS TO THE ASSESSEE. 12. IN CASE OF GAJENDRA KUMAR T. AGARWAL VS. ITO (2011) 11 TAXMANN.COM 231 (MUM.) , COORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL ALSO DECIDED THE IDENTICAL ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESS EE BY RETURNING THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS :- SECTION 43(5), READ WITH SECTIONS 72 AND 73, OF TH E INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 SPECULATIVE TRANSACTIONS ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2006-07 WHETHER PROFITS AND GAINS OF BUSINESS, FOR PURPOSE OF CARRY FORWARD AND SET OFF OF LOSSES, AS CLASSIFIED IN TWO BASKETS (I) SPECULATION BUSINESS AND (II) NON-SPECULATION BUSIN ESS HELD, YES WHETHER TWO CATEGORIES ARE MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE AND LOSSES INCURRED OF EACH CATEGORY CAN ONLY BE SET OFF AGAIN ST PROFITS OF SAME CATEGORY HELD, YES WHETHER ONLY PURPOSE OF SEGREGATING LOSSES OF SPECULATION AND NON-SPECULATION BUSINESS IS TO ENSURE THAT LOSSES INCURRED BY ASSESSEE IN SPECULATION BUS INESS, WHICH LACK SUFFICIENT TRANSPARENCY, AND LEAVE SCOPE FOR G ENERATING FICTITIOUS LOSSES THROUGH ARTIFICIAL TRANSACTIONS O R SHIFTING OF INCIDENCE OF ..FROM ONE PERSON TO ANOTHER, ARE NOT ALLOWED TO BE SET OFF AGAINST PROFITS OF ANOTHER BUSINESS OTHE R THAN A SIMILAR BUSINESS HELD, YES WHETHER IN VIEW OF AMENDMENT MADE IN SECTION 43 (5) WITH EFFECT FROM 1-4-2006 LOSSES INC URRED IN DERIVATIVE TRADING ARE HELD TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR BEIN G SET OFF AGAINST NORMAL BUSINESS PROFITS, AS DERIVATIVE TRADING ITSE LF IS TREATED AS A NON-SPECULATION BUSINESS, AND LOSSES OF ANY NON-SPE CULATIVE BUSINESSES CAN BE ADJUSTED AGAINST PROFITS OF ANY N ON-SPECULATIVE BUSINESS HELD, YES WHETHER BY WAY OF SAID AMEND MENT LEGISLATIVE DID NOT INTEND TO TAKE AWAY BROUGHT FOR WARD LOSSES OF DEALING IN DERIVATIVES OR MAKE THEM INELIGIBLE FOR BEING SET OFF AGAINST PROFITS OF SAME BUSINESS IN SUBSEQUENT YEAR S HELD , YES WHETHER WHATEVER MAY BE CHARACTERIZATION OF INCOM E FOR PURPOSE OF INTRA ASSESSMENT WERE SET OFF IN RELEVAN T ASSESSMENT YEAR, AND IRRESPECTIVE OF FACT THAT SUCH A CHARACTE RIZATION HAS ITA NO.4191/DEL./2012 8 ACHIEVED FINALITY IN ASSESSMENT, LOSSES AND PROFITS FROM DEALINGS IN DERIVATIVES MUST BE CHARACTERIZED ON A UNIFORM B ASIS IN ASSESSMENT YEAR IN WHICH SET OFF IS CLAIMED HELD, YES WHETHER VIEWED IN THIS PERSPECTIVE CLASSIFICATION OF BUSINE SS FOR LIMITED PURPOSE OF SET OFF OF PAST LOSSES, INTO SPECULATIVE AND NON- SPECULATIVE, IS TO BE DONE ON A UNIFORM BASIS, AND, WHICHEVER WAY LOOKS AT IT, LOSSES INCURRED IN SAME BUSINESS IN EA RLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS ARE TO BE TREATED AS ELIGIBLE FOR SET OFF AGA INST PROFITS OF SAME BUSINESS, SUBJECT TO FULFILLMENT OF OTHER COND ITIONS IN SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEARS HELD, YES WHETHER T HE SAID REASONS ASSESSEE WOULD BE GRANTED SET OFF OF BROUGH T FORWARD LOSSES FROM BUSINESS OF DEALING IN DERIVATIVES, INC URRED IN ASSESSMENT YEARS PRIOR TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 A GAINST PROFITS OF SAME BUSINESS IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 AND SUB SEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEARS HELD, YES. 13. COORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN CASE OF ITO VS. M/S. EMPEROR INTERNATIONAL LTD. (SUPRA) HELD THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT (A) DECIDING THE IDENTICAL ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY RETURNING FOLLOWING FINDINGS :- 9. IN THE PRESENT CASE, IT IS AN ADMITTED FACT TH AT THE ASSESSEE WAS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF DEALING IN SHARES & SECURITIES AND HAVE INCURRED LOSS FROM DEA LING IN DERIVATIVES (SHARES FUTURES). IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE AO THAT THE SHARE FUTURES IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE WAS DEALING WERE NOT RECORDED IN RECOGNIZED STOCK EXCHANGE, THE LOSS INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS ALS O NOT DISPUTED BY THE AO. WE, THEREFORE, BY KEEPING I N VIEW THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN CLAUSE (D) TO SUBSECTION (5) OF SECTION 43 OF THE ACT, ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE LD. CIT(A) WAS FULLY JUSTIFIED IN DIRECTIN G THE AO FOR NOT TREATING THE LOSS INCURRED BY THE ASSESS EE ON DERIVATIVES AND THE PROFIT EARNED IF TRADING OF THE COMMODITY AS SPECULATIVE IN NATURE, FOR THE AFORESA ID VIEW, WE ARE ALSO FORTIFIED BY THE DECISION OF THE ITAT MUMBAI B BENCH IN THE CASE OF R.B.K. SECURITIES ( P) LTD. VS ITO REPORTED IN 118 TTJ 465 (SUPRA). ITA NO.4191/DEL./2012 9 14. AFORESAID DECISIONS HAVE BEEN DULY DISCUSSED BY THE LD. CIT (A) IN IMPUGNED ORDER WHICH ARE APPLICABLE TO THE F ACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. THE ONLY DIFFERENCE BET WEEN THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AO AND THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY T HE LD. CIT (A) IS, AO HAS IGNORED THE AMENDMENT VIDE WHICH CLA USE (D) HAS BEEN INSERTED IN SECTION 43 (5) OF THE ACT BY THE F INANCE ACT, 2005 W.E.F. 01.04.2006 AND RELIED UPON THE DECISIONS REN DERED PRIOR TO 01.04.2006 AND WHICH ARE APPLICABLE TO THE TRANSACT IONS DONE BY THE ASSESSEE AFTER 01.04.2006. 15. SO, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT WHEN UND ISPUTEDLY ASSESSEE HAS ENTERED INTO TRANSACTION OF DERIVATIVE S AFTER 01.04.2006 IN A RECOGNISED STOCK EXCHANGE AS PER CI RCULAR NO.2/2006 DATED 25.01.2006, LOSS ARISING IN F&O TRA NSACTION HAS TO BE TREATED AS BUSINESS LOSS AND NOT LOSS IN SPECULA TIVE BUSINESS. 16. THE LD. CIT (A) HAS RIGHTLY DIRECTED THE AO TO TREAT THE DERIVATIVE TRADING LOSS AS BUSINESS LOSS AS PER PRO VISIONS CONTAINED U/S 43(5) CLAUSE (C) & (D) AND THE SAME HAS TO BE A LLOWED TO BE SET OFF AGAINST THE OTHER BUSINESS INCOME RECEIVED BY T HE ASSESSEE FROM THE TRADING OF ALCOHOLIC LIQUOR. SO, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE CONTENTION RAISED BY THE LD. DR THAT SECTI ON 73 EXPLANATION 1 IS A DEEMING PROVISION APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS AN D CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IS NOT TENABLE AS IT DOES NOT TALK OF F &O TRANSACTIONS. ITA NO.4191/DEL./2012 10 THE CASE LAW OF CIT-I VS. INTERMETAL TRADE LTD. (SUPRA) RELIED UPON BY THE LD. DR IS ALSO NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FA CTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. CONSEQUENTLY, FINDING N O ILLEGALITY OR PERVERSITY IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT (A), PRESENT APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS HEREBY DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THIS 22 ND DAY OF JULY, 2019. SD/- SD/- (R.K. PANDA) (KULDIP SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED THE 22 ND DAY OF JULY, 2019 TS COPY FORWARDED TO: 1.APPELLANT 2.RESPONDENT 3.CIT 4.CIT(A)-XIII, NEW DELHI. 5.CIT(ITAT), NEW DELHI. AR, ITAT NEW DELHI.