Appeal dismissed due to lack of legal questions. Final bills, expenses, interest income discussed. Custom duty, interest income remanded.

The appeal was dismissed as the Tribunal found no substantial question of law on the various issues raised, including the treatment of advanced amounts in final bills, expenses claimed as revenue expenses, and interest income on share application money. The Tribunal also allowed additional grounds related to custom duty and interest income, remanding certain matters back to the Assessing Officer for further examination.

---

---

Issues:
1. Addition of pre-operative income as income from other sources.
2. Deletion of addition for purchases treated as bogus.
3. Deletion of expenses claimed as revenue expenses instead of capitalizing them.
4. Deletion of addition in respect of computation of deduction u/s 35D.
5. Admission of additional grounds by the CIT (A).
6. Setting aside the issue regarding calculation of deduction u/s 80HHC.
7. Restoration of interest income on share application money added as income from other sources.
8. Entertainment of additional grounds relating to interest income on share application money.
9. Restoration of the issue relating to custom duty paid.
10. Entertainment of additional grounds relating to custom duty deduction.

Analysis:
1. The Tribunal concluded that the advanced amounts adjusted in the final bill were on capital account, reducing the cost of assets, not taxable under "Income from other sources."
2. The Tribunal found substantial evidence supporting the purchases from M/s Saibaba Sales Corporation, dismissing the disallowance by the Assessing Officer based on the sales tax authority's communication.
3. The Tribunal upheld the expenses claimed by the assessee as revenue expenses, considering them ancillary expenses for obtaining loans for acquiring capital assets.
4. The Tribunal remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer to decide the addition in light of Sections 37 and 35D of the Act, concerning capital expenditure.
5. The Tribunal admitted additional grounds based on similar issues previously addressed by the Court, finding no substantial question of law.
6. The Tribunal set aside the issue regarding the deduction u/s 80HHC due to no scope for setting off interest income against expenditure before applying clause (baa).
7. The Tribunal restored the interest income on share application money added as income from other sources, granting the Assessing Officer an opportunity to examine the claim.
8. The Tribunal entertained additional grounds related to interest income on share application money, finding no error in doing so.
9. The Tribunal restored the issue related to custom duty paid, allowing further examination by the Assessing Officer.
10. The Tribunal entertained additional grounds concerning custom duty deduction, finding no substantial question of law on the issues raised.

In conclusion, the appeal was dismissed as no substantial question of law was found on any of the issues raised during the proceedings.

---