The assessee had entered into Forward Contract with the bank in order to hedge its foreign exchange risk. Due to adverse foreign exchange movement, the bank had debited the loss to the assessee’s account. Thus, the loss debited by the bank in the assessee’s account had crystallized and was a realistic loss suffered by the assessee. It was stated that only money changers and banks are allowed to trade in foreign currency and the assessee was neither a money changer nor a bank. Tribunal held that on perusal of the appellate order, assessee had submitted the details of the forward contracts entered into and the CIT(A) had tabulated the same revealing that the assessee has utilized the services of various banks in order to iron out the loss arising out of foreign currency fluctuation risk by entering into forex derivative contract. It was found, bank wise statement of deals executed by the assessee submitted before the CIT(A) indicated that the total export turnover of the assessee during the year was 13.9 million USD amounting to Rs.63 crores and there were 213 export invoices. On verification of the statement of bank wise deals executed for the year, the CIT(A) had observed that all the derivative contracts executed were cancelled before the due date and even a single contract was not honoured. The number of contracts was very high in number. The approximate value of derivative contracts for the year was about 5 times the export turnover along and about 3.5 times the export and import turnover. Thus, the abnormally high figures indicated that the assessee was trading much more than genuine requirement for hedging. Accordingly, the AO was directed to restrict the actual loss in lieu of actual export after verification of contract notes, etc. and the assessee was also directed to cooperate with the Department by producing all particulars.(AY. 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12)