https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=258947 The High Court upheld the decisions of the lower authorities, confirming that the transactions were hedging, not speculative. The Court found that the CIT(A) did not violate any rules in admitting evidence, as the evidence submitted was already before the Assessing Officer. Consequently, the Tax Appeal was dismissed, with the Court determining that no substantial question of law arose and no interference was necessary. en-us Wed, 25 Mar 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 25 Apr 2015 07:47:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=258947 The High Court upheld the decisions of the lower authorities, confirming that the transactions were hedging, not speculative. The Court found that the CIT(A) did not violate any rules in admitting evidence, as the evidence submitted was already before the Assessing Officer. Consequently, the Tax Appeal was dismissed, with the Court determining that no substantial question of law arose and no interference was necessary. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 25 Mar 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=258947