2015 (2) TMI 481

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... The appellant craves leave for addition, modification, alteration, amendment of any of the grounds of appeal. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is in the business of manufacturing CTD/TMT steel bars and it filed its return of income on 30.9.2008 which was revised on 1.9.2009. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noted that company had huge investments and further it had earned dividend income amounting to Rs. 94,48,851/- and long term capital gain of Rs. 17,96,991/- which were claimed as exempt u/s 10(34) & 10(38) of the Act. The Assessing Officer further observed that assessee had not made any disallowance for expenditure incurred in respect of ear....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... bearing borrowed funds were only to the extent of Rs. 8.49 crores. He also took us to page 30 of paper book wherein he invited our attention to the total borrowings as on 31.3.208 and stated that these loans were specific loans raised for various specific assets which were used to acquir these assets only and working capital limit were only to the extent of Rs. 8.49 crores and that to were invested in the net current assets. To highlight his point he took us to page 32 and 33 of paper book and submitted that against networking limit of Rs. 8.49 crores there were net current assets to the extent of Rs. 32.26 crores. Therefore, it was argued that no borrowed funds were used for making investment and therefore the disallowance u/s 14A was not....