2014 (5) TMI 359

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the Appellate Tribunal has substantially erred in deleting the addition of Rs.30,42,215/- being interest on unsecured loan? 3. Whether the Appellate Tribunal has substantially erred in deleting the addition of Rs.51,983/- being penalty expenses?" 2. We have heard learned Senior Counsel Mr. Manish Bhatt for the Revenue and examined the record. 3. So far as the first question is concerned, we notice that the Assessing Officer had disallowed the loss claimed in MCX transaction. When this was challenged before the C.I.T. (Appeals), it had deleted such addition. On the ground that since the issue is covered by assessee's own case for the assessment year 2006-07, the Tribunal also held the issue in favour of the assessee. We have not....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....stances, we find that both the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal below held that these transactions were of an integrated nature and were entered into to guard against future losses and, therefore, came within the exception to Section 43(5) of the Act. In such circumstances, we find that the Tribunal below was quite justified in upholding the finding recorded by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) that the loss could not be said to be a speculation loss. We find that no substantial question of law is involved on the above question." The first question, therefore, needs to be answered accordingly in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue, and as such, deserves no consideration. 4. The second issue pe....