Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 25 (0.06 seconds)
Documents citing D. M. Wadhwana vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, West ... on 6 April, 1965

Nanalal M. Varma & Co. (P.) Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 6 June, 1968

32. We find that Wadhwana's case was also followed by another Division Bench of our court in Murlidhar Jhunjhunwalla v. Commissioner of Income-tax, [1969] 73 I.T.R. 727 (Appendix).. In this case K. L. Roy J. (with whom Banerjee J. concurred) has held that there must be actual delivery or transfer of the commodity itself in order to take a transaction out of the definition of speculative transactions in Explanation 2 to Section 24(1). K. L, Roy J. has held further that the word " settled " means " determined " or " concluded " or " disposed of". Recording to Roy J., a contract for sale and purchase of jute may be concluded and/or determined by delivery of P.D.Os; but it would be a case of contract "concluded and/or determined " without actual delivery of the commodity and would be a speculative transaction with the meaning of Explanation 2 to Section 24(1). With this view of the Division Bench we are in agreement. Our attention has been drawn to a judgment of A. N. Ray J. (sitting with D. Basu J.)
Calcutta High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Thakurlal Shivprakash Poddar vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 15 February, 1978

15. The case Davenport and Co. P. Ltd. v. CIT [1975] 100 ITR 715 (SC), on which reliance has been placed by learned counsel for the department is a case not dealing with a situation of breach of contract; but in that case, the question was about the actual delivery and in that context it was held that the definition of "delivery" in Section 2(2) of the Sale of Goods Act which has been held to include both actual and constructive or symbolical delivery has no bearing on speculative transactions and it is in this view that their Lordships of the Supreme Court approved the decision reported in D.M. Wadhwana v. CIT [1966] 61 ITR 154 (Cal). In this decision, their Lordships laid emphasis on the term "actual" used before "delivery" to distinguish it from the definition of "delivery" as given in the Sale of Goods Act. And, it is on this basis that it appears that it was observed that the concept of delivery under the Sale of Goods Act could not be introduced while interpreting this provision under the I.T. Act.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 28 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Ram Lal & Sons vs Income-Tax Officer on 28 January, 1999

Whether a transaction is speculative in the general sense or under the Contract Act is not relevant for the purpose of this Explanation. The definition of 'delivery' in section 2(2) of the Sale of Goods Act which has been held to include both actual and constructive or symbolic, delivery has no bearing on definition of speculative transaction in the Explanation. A transaction which is otherwise speculative would not be a speculative transaction within the meaning of Explanation 2 if actual delivery of the commodity or the scrips has taken place; on the other hand, a transaction which is not otherwise speculative in nature may yet be speculative according to Explanation 2 if there is no actual delivery of the commodity or the scrips. The Explanation does not invalidate speculative transactions which are otherwise legal but gives a special meaning to that expression for purposes of income-tax only in D. Wadhawana v. CIT on which the Tribunal's decision in this case is based, the Calcutta High Court observed :
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Amritsar Cites 13 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax, West ... vs Pioneer Trading Company Private Ltd. on 29 June, 1967

We have no decision explaining the Explanation from the point of view we have now to consider. Our attention was invited to a judgment of this court in D. M. Wadhwana v. Commissioner of Income-tax, in which G. K. Mitter J. had to consider the language of Explanation 2 to section 24(1) in different context. The facts in that case were that under certain contracts the assessee had to sell to and purchase from the same party the same quantity of the specified commodity of which delivery had to be effected by both on the same day. The parties to a contract exchanged pucca delivery orders which authorised the assessee and the other party respectively to take delivery of the stipulates number of bales from the mills concerned and to draw bills on each other pursuant to the contracts. Debit and credit entries for the entire amount in respect of the pucca delivery orders were found in the account books and the bank pass books of the assessee. The question was, whether the net loss incurred by the assessee in these transactions could be set of against the other business income of the assessee under section 24(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1922. In that context his Lordship expressed the opinion that as exchanged of pucca delivery orders amounted only to notional and not real delivery of the goods as contemplated by Explanation 2 to section 24(1), the transactions were speculative transactions and the loss incurred by the assessee could not be set off against the other business income under section 24(1). His Lordship observed :
Calcutta High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 35 - Full Document

Bhikamchand Betala And Sons vs Income Tax Officer on 21 August, 2007

In Abdul Gani Haji Habib (supra), the Court relying upon the decisions in Hoosen Kasam Dada (India) Ltd. (supra), D.M. Wadhwana v. CIT and Sahu Jain Ltd. v. CIT , held that the transactions which were settled by payment of differences must be treated as speculative transactions even though the assessee did not intend when the contracts were entered into to settle them by payment of differences inasmuch as the intention of the parties has no place in the scheme of Section 24.
Gauhati High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - A Hazarika - Full Document

Seksaria Riswan Sugar Factory Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 5 February, 1979

The larger Bench of the Supreme Court in Davenport & Company's case [1975] 100 ITR 715 extracted with approval a passage from D. M. Wadhwana v. CIT [1966] 61 ITR 154, where the Calcutta High Court had dealt with the Explanation. According to the Supreme Court, the extracted passage represented the correct statement of the law. It was further pointed out that such transactions were not invalidated by the Explanation but only branded as "speculative transactions" to be put in a special category for income-tax purposes.
Bombay High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 3 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next