Court upholds deletion of additions on depreciation, interest income, and share capital expenses.

The court did not entertain the Revenue's challenge on the deletion of additions related to depreciation on a toll road and interest income under Income from Other Sources due to procedural grounds and the minimal amounts involved. The issue concerning expenses incurred in relation to an increase in authorized share capital was also not addressed by the court. The Tribunal's decision to delete these additions was upheld, with the Registry directed to provide a copy of the order for future reference. The Respondent's counsel cooperated by waiving service.

---

---

Issues:
1. Deletion of addition on account of depreciation on toll road
2. Deletion of addition of interest income under the head Income from Other Sources
3. Deletion of addition of expenses incurred in relation to Increase in Authorised Share Capital

Analysis:
1. The first issue revolves around the deletion of addition on account of depreciation on a toll road amounting to Rs. 40,12,50,880. The Revenue challenged the decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) by raising a substantial question of law. The Tribunal's decision was based on the contention that the interest income earned by the Assessee was not part of the business income. The Revenue cited a Supreme Court judgment and previous Tribunal decisions, but the Court did not entertain the question in the present Appeal due to procedural grounds related to a previous appeal.

2. The second issue concerns the deletion of the addition of interest income of Rs. 1,34,59,582 under the head Income from Other Sources. The Revenue argued that this income was not derived from the business activity of the assessee company. However, the Court did not delve into this issue due to the small amount involved, without entering into the controversy.

3. The third issue pertains to the deletion of addition of expenses incurred in relation to the Increase in Authorised Share Capital amounting to Rs. 8,64,400. The Court did not entertain this question as well, solely due to the minimal amount in question. The Registry was directed to provide a copy of the order to the Tribunal for reference in the future. The Respondent's counsel waived service for the Respondent, indicating cooperation in the legal proceedings.

---