TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (9) TMI 430
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ntly revised return of income was filed on 16.11.2006, declaring total income of Rs.22,11,110/-.The assessing officer completed assessment u/s. 143(3) of the Act on 15.12.2008, determining total income at2,67,45,404/-. He made certain disallowances and additions. On appeal, the first appellate authority granted part relief. Further aggrieved, the assessee has filed an appeal before us on the following grounds: (a) Whether Ld. CIT(A) was correct on facts and circumstances of the case and in law in deleting the disallowances of Rs. 58,26,886/- made by the AO on account of loss of derivatives. (b) Whether Ld. CIT(A) was correct on facts and circumstances if the cases and in law in deleting the addition of Rs.1,76,59,296/- made by the AO on a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 3.54 crores as on 31.3.2006. He pointed out that there is debit balance of more than Rs. 60 lacs against the directors. Thus he submits that the OD facility should not have been availed by the company and the assessee failed to explain the reasons for taking an overdraft when there is sufficient funds available. 5. The learned counsel for the assessee Sh. Sameer Kapoor on the other hand supported the order of the CIT (A) and submitted that prior to 21.5.2006, the assessee had net gain from speculative transactions and hence there can be no question of disallowance on the ground that there is speculation loss. He submitted calculations and argued that the CIT (A) has verified the same. Alternatively, he submitted that the Tribunal in the c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....greed with these submissions of the learned AR. 8. Rival contentions heard. On a careful examination of the facts and circumstances of the case and a perusal of the papers on record and the orders of the authorities below as well as case law cited, we hold as follows: On the first issue we find that the CIT (A) has examined the issue as to whether the assessee has loss from derivative transactions between 1.4.2005 to 25th January,2006. He has come to a conclusion that the assessee did not incur net loss during this period. It was a case where the assessee received net gain from transactions in futures and options, done between 1.4.2005 to25.01.2006.This factual finding is not found fault with by the Ld. DR. AO has no basis for arriving a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... uphold the order of the CIT(A) and dismis this ground of the Revenue. Ground No. 2 is on the issue of disallowance of interest. The bank granted overdraft facilities for business purposes. When the loan has been granted for the business purpose, no disallowance can be made as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SA Builders Limited Vs. CIT(A) - 288 ITR 1. Even otherwise we find that the assessee has surplus funds in the form of undistributed profits of the earlier year amounting to Rs. 1.01 crores and surplus profits of the current year Rs.18 lacs. Thus, the presumption is that the surplus funds have to be held as used for giving money to directors. This proposition is laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Munjal Sale....