I bought and sold goods by endorsing delivery orders and never handled them. Is my loss a speculation loss even though the sale was perfectly valid?
Yes. The Supreme Court held that actual delivery in the definition of a speculative transaction means real as opposed to notional delivery. The wider meaning of delivery in the Sale of Goods Act, which takes in constructive or symbolic delivery, has no bearing on it. A transaction that is speculative in the ordinary sense is not caught if the commodity is actually delivered, and a transaction that is not speculative in any ordinary sense is caught if it is not. The definition does not invalidate anything; it only brands such transactions as speculative for income-tax purposes and confines the loss accordingly.
Decided by the Supreme Court (Supreme Court of India; A.C. Gupta, V.R. Krishna Iyer and Ranjit Singh Sarkaria JJ. Judgment by Gupta J) on 1975-07-31, reported as (1975) 100 ITR 715; 1975 (2) SCC 399; AIR 1975 SC 1996; 1976 SCR (1) 180; 1975 SCC (Tax) 362. It bears on section 43(5), section 73, section 24(1) of the Income Tax Act 1961, in Assessment & Scrutiny, How Tax Law Is Read and Deductions & Disallowances matters.
This is the case that settled that the question is one of physical delivery and nothing else, and it removed a real conflict: the Calcutta High Court's decision in Raghunath Prasad Poddar was overruled and D.M. Wadhwana approved. The reasoning matters because it is the answer to the argument practitioners are tempted to make, that the transfer of a delivery order passes property and so amounts to delivery in law. It does, for the purposes of the Sale of Goods Act and sales tax, and the Court accepted those authorities on their own ground; but the tax definition asks a different question. The consequence is practical and severe: a genuine, completed, legal sale of goods produces a loss that can be set off only against profits of the same kind, simply because the goods stayed in the mill's godown.
Binding on every court and authority in India.
Read aloud by your device. Press again to stop.
The assessee, a private company dealing in tea garden tools and acting as selling agent for tea, drew most of its income from selling commission. In the previous year ended 30 June 1958, relevant to assessment year 1959-60, it entered into jute transactions for the first time. On 17 April 1958 it contracted to buy 1,100 bales of B-Twill from two parties and 2,500 bales of corn sacks from a third under three contracts. On 18 June 1958 it contracted to sell the whole of that quantity to another firm. It had no godown and never handled the goods, which stayed in the mills' godowns; only the delivery orders changed hands. It realised Rs 10,49,865 against a purchase cost of Rs 11,48,399, a loss of Rs 98,534, which it sought to set against its other income for the year. The Income-tax Officer held the transactions speculative under Explanation 2 to section 24(1) of the 1922 Act, so the loss could only be carried forward against speculation profits. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner treated it as a business loss. The Tribunal restored the officer's order, following D.M. Wadhwana, and the Calcutta High Court answered the reference against the assessee.
The appeal was dismissed, without costs. The words actual delivery in Explanation 2 mean real as opposed to notional delivery. For income-tax purposes a speculative transaction means what the Explanation says it means, and whether the transaction is speculative in the general sense or under section 30 of the Contract Act is irrelevant. The definition of delivery in section 2(2) of the Sale of Goods Act, which includes constructive or symbolic delivery, has no bearing on it. A transaction otherwise speculative is not within the Explanation if actual delivery of the commodity or scrips has taken place, and a transaction not otherwise speculative may still be within it if there is no actual delivery. The Explanation does not invalidate transactions that are otherwise lawful; it gives the expression a special meaning for income-tax alone. D.M. Wadhwana was approved and Raghunath Prasad Poddar overruled.
The Court set out the scheme: section 24(1) allows a loss under one head to be set against income under another, the first proviso confines a loss in speculative business to set-off against profits of a similar business, Explanation 1 treats speculative transactions amounting to a business as a distinct and separate business, and Explanation 2 defines a speculative transaction as one where a contract for purchase and sale of a commodity is periodically or ultimately settled otherwise than by actual delivery or transfer of the commodity. It then dealt with the sales tax and sale of goods authorities on which the assessee relied, including Duni Chand Rataria, Bayanna Bhimayya and Kolla Sreeramamurthy, where the endorsement of delivery orders was examined and where, on Butterworth v Kingsway, the title obtained by the ultimate endorsee was held to feed the previously defective titles of the intermediate holders. Those cases were decided on the passing of property under the sale of goods and sales tax legislation, and had hardly any connection with section 24, so their observations could not guide the question here. Adopting the Calcutta High Court's statement in D.M. Wadhwana, the Court held that the Explanation does not prevent people from contracting without physically handing over goods and does not invalidate such sales; it is designed only to segregate, for income-tax purposes, losses of a certain kind, by branding transactions not completed by actual delivery as speculative and putting them in a special category.
The words actual delivery in explanation 2 means real as opposed to notional delivery.
Upload it and we will read it, work out your deadline and draft the reply. A CA reviews before anything is filed.
Handle my notice → Ask a CA on WhatsAppYes. The Supreme Court held that actual delivery in the definition of a speculative transaction means real as opposed to notional delivery. The wider meaning of delivery in the Sale of Goods Act, which takes in constructive or symbolic delivery, has no bearing on it. A transaction that is speculative in the ordinary sense is not caught if the commodity is actually delivered, and a transaction that is not speculative in any ordinary sense is caught if it is not. The definition does not invalidate anything; it only brands such transactions as speculative for income-tax purposes and confines the loss accordingly. This was decided by the Supreme Court (Supreme Court of India; A.C. Gupta, V.R. Krishna Iyer and Ranjit Singh Sarkaria JJ. Judgment by Gupta J) and bears on section 43(5), section 73, section 24(1) of the Income Tax Act 1961. It is reported as (1975) 100 ITR 715; 1975 (2) SCC 399; AIR 1975 SC 1996; 1976 SCR (1) 180; 1975 SCC (Tax) 362. This is the case that settled that the question is one of physical delivery and nothing else, and it removed a real conflict: the Calcutta High Court's decision in Raghunath Prasad Poddar was overruled and D.M. Wadhwana approved. The reasoning matters because it is the answer to the argument practitioners are tempted to make, that the transfer of a delivery order passes property and so amounts to delivery in law. It does, for the purposes of the Sale of Goods Act and sales tax, and the Court accepted those authorities on their own ground; but the tax definition asks a different question. The consequence is practical and severe: a genuine, completed, legal sale of goods produces a loss that can be set off only against profits of the same kind, simply because the goods stayed in the mill's godown. If it applies to you, the first step is this: Ask only whether the commodity physically moved. Do not rely on the passing of property, endorsement of delivery orders, or constructive delivery under the Sale of Goods Act.
The assessee, a private company dealing in tea garden tools and acting as selling agent for tea, drew most of its income from selling commission. In the previous year ended 30 June 1958, relevant to assessment year 1959-60, it entered into jute transactions for the first time. On 17 April 1958 it contracted to buy 1,100 bales of B-Twill from two parties and 2,500 bales of corn sacks from a third under three contracts. On 18 June 1958 it contracted to sell the whole of that quantity to another firm. It had no godown and never handled the goods, which stayed in the mills' godowns; only the delivery orders changed hands. It realised Rs 10,49,865 against a purchase cost of Rs 11,48,399, a loss of Rs 98,534, which it sought to set against its other income for the year. The Income-tax Officer held the transactions speculative under Explanation 2 to section 24(1) of the 1922 Act, so the loss could only be carried forward against speculation profits. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner treated it as a business loss. The Tribunal restored the officer's order, following D.M. Wadhwana, and the Calcutta High Court answered the reference against the assessee. The matter was decided on 1975-07-31 by the Supreme Court (Supreme Court of India; A.C. Gupta, V.R. Krishna Iyer and Ranjit Singh Sarkaria JJ. Judgment by Gupta J). On those facts the Supreme Court held as follows. The appeal was dismissed, without costs. The words actual delivery in Explanation 2 mean real as opposed to notional delivery. For income-tax purposes a speculative transaction means what the Explanation says it means, and whether the transaction is speculative in the general sense or under section 30 of the Contract Act is irrelevant. The definition of delivery in section 2(2) of the Sale of Goods Act, which includes constructive or symbolic delivery, has no bearing on it. A transaction otherwise speculative is not within the Explanation if actual delivery of the commodity or scrips has taken place, and a transaction not otherwise speculative may still be within it if there is no actual delivery. The Explanation does not invalidate transactions that are otherwise lawful; it gives the expression a special meaning for income-tax alone. D.M. Wadhwana was approved and Raghunath Prasad Poddar overruled.
The Court set out the scheme: section 24(1) allows a loss under one head to be set against income under another, the first proviso confines a loss in speculative business to set-off against profits of a similar business, Explanation 1 treats speculative transactions amounting to a business as a distinct and separate business, and Explanation 2 defines a speculative transaction as one where a contract for purchase and sale of a commodity is periodically or ultimately settled otherwise than by actual delivery or transfer of the commodity. It then dealt with the sales tax and sale of goods authorities on which the assessee relied, including Duni Chand Rataria, Bayanna Bhimayya and Kolla Sreeramamurthy, where the endorsement of delivery orders was examined and where, on Butterworth v Kingsway, the title obtained by the ultimate endorsee was held to feed the previously defective titles of the intermediate holders. Those cases were decided on the passing of property under the sale of goods and sales tax legislation, and had hardly any connection with section 24, so their observations could not guide the question here. Adopting the Calcutta High Court's statement in D.M. Wadhwana, the Court held that the Explanation does not prevent people from contracting without physically handing over goods and does not invalidate such sales; it is designed only to segregate, for income-tax purposes, losses of a certain kind, by branding transactions not completed by actual delivery as speculative and putting them in a special category. In the words reproduced by the source cited on this page: "The words actual delivery in explanation 2 means real as opposed to notional delivery."
It was decided by the Supreme Court on 1975-07-31 and is reported as (1975) 100 ITR 715; 1975 (2) SCC 399; AIR 1975 SC 1996; 1976 SCR (1) 180; 1975 SCC (Tax) 362. Binding on every court and authority in India. A Supreme Court decision binds every assessing officer, every Commissioner (Appeals), every bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and every High Court in India. An officer who declines to follow it is acting contrary to law, and that refusal is itself a ground of appeal. On section 43(5), section 73, section 24(1), the practical question is whether the facts of your own notice match the facts of this case closely enough for the same rule to apply.
It helps the department, and it appears in this library for that reason — you need to know what the Assessing Officer will cite against you. The appeal was dismissed, without costs. The words actual delivery in Explanation 2 mean real as opposed to notional delivery. For income-tax purposes a speculative transaction means what the Explanation says it means, and whether the transaction is speculative in the general sense or under section 30 of the Contract Act is irrelevant. The definition of delivery in section 2(2) of the Sale of Goods Act, which includes constructive or symbolic delivery, has no bearing on it. A transaction otherwise speculative is not within the Explanation if actual delivery of the commodity or scrips has taken place, and a transaction not otherwise speculative may still be within it if there is no actual delivery. The Explanation does not invalidate transactions that are otherwise lawful; it gives the expression a special meaning for income-tax alone. D.M. Wadhwana was approved and Raghunath Prasad Poddar overruled. It arises in Assessment & Scrutiny, How Tax Law Is Read and Deductions & Disallowances matters, on section 43(5), section 73, section 24(1) of the Income Tax Act 1961, and was decided by Supreme Court of India; A.C. Gupta, V.R. Krishna Iyer and Ranjit Singh Sarkaria JJ. Judgment by Gupta J. Before relying on it, read the source linked on this page and check whether it has since been distinguished, overruled or overtaken by an amendment to the Income Tax Act. In practice the steps that follow from it are these. Keep the evidence of physical delivery where you have it, since that alone takes an otherwise speculative dealing out of the definition. Expect the loss to be ring-fenced against profits of the same kind and carried forward if there are none, as happened here, and plan the set-off accordingly. Check the current definition before concluding. It now carries exceptions, including for hedging by a dealer or manufacturer and for eligible derivative transactions on a recognised exchange, which did not exist when this was decided.
Still good law. The actual delivery test is settled and the source page records the decision as followed in later cases. It construes Explanation 2 to section 24(1) of the 1922 Act; the corresponding definition in the 1961 Act now carries several exceptions, including hedging contracts and eligible derivative transactions on recognised exchanges, so the current text must be read alongside it. No source could be cited for that finding. Checking whether an authority still stands matters as much as knowing what it held: a decision may be overruled on one point and survive on another, or the provision it interprets may have been amended since. Read the source and the editor's note on this page before relying on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal.
The judgment decides Explanation 2 to section 24(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1922; the sections field gives the corresponding provisions of the 1961 Act, the definition of speculative transaction in section 43(5) and the ring-fencing of speculation losses in section 73. The Court did not consider whether the dealings amounted to a speculation business as distinct from isolated speculative transactions, which the Explanation treats separately. The harvested page carries a reporter's headnote above the judgment, which has been disregarded, and the text contains evident misprints, including a garbled sentence in the passage on the effect of the Explanation and 'Income-Talc' for Income-tax. This library shows the verification state of every entry openly. This entry has not yet been read in full by a chartered accountant. The summary reflects the sources listed on this page. Read the source before you rely on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
The appeal was dismissed, without costs. The words actual delivery in Explanation 2 mean real as opposed to notional delivery. For income-tax purposes a speculative transaction means what the Explanation says it means, and whether the transaction is speculative in the general sense or under section 30 of the Contract Act is irrelevant. The definition of delivery in section 2(2) of the Sale of Goods Act, which includes constructive or symbolic delivery, has no bearing on it. A transaction otherwise speculative is not within the Explanation if actual delivery of the commodity or scrips has taken place, and a transaction not otherwise speculative may still be within it if there is no actual delivery. The Explanation does not invalidate transactions that are otherwise lawful; it gives the expression a special meaning for income-tax alone. D.M. Wadhwana was approved and Raghunath Prasad Poddar overruled.
TaxSphere, “Davenport & Co P Ltd v CIT”, https://taxnotice.vittsphere.com/caselaw/case/davenport-co-v-cit-actual-delivery-speculative-transaction/ (validity last checked 2026-08-29)
The judgment itself is a government work and may be quoted freely. The summary, the validity note and the reasoning on this page are this library's own writing: quote them with attribution, and please do not present either as the words of the court — this page keeps the two apart and so should a quotation of it.
Every entry in this library links to where it was found, so you can check it yourself rather than take our word for it.
Can I set my share trading loss off against my F&O profits?
The AO says my company's gross total income does not 'consist mainly' of the four excluded heads because he has left the share loss out of the business head. Is that the right computation?
My company lost money trading in exchange traded derivatives. Section 43(5)(d) says those are not speculative transactions, so can I set the loss off against ordinary business income?
My company has brought forward speculation loss from the Explanation to s.73. This year it made a profit on delivery-based share sales. The AO says the deeming fiction works only on losses. Can I set the brought forward loss against that profit?
