Concurrent factual findings shield software depreciation, business losses and expenditure claims from interference absent perversity or substantial legal question.

Depreciation on purchased and installed software was allowable where evidence established that it was acquired, developed or integrated into machinery systems as an intangible asset. Additions for alleged bogus purchases and balance differences, and disallowances of machinery repairs, were deleted on supported concurrent factual findings that raised no substantial question of law. Interest disallowance on advances was unsustainable because the advances funded raw materials and plant and machinery and sufficient own funds existed, negating diversion of interest-bearing borrowings. Loss on sale of raw materials was allowable on unrebutted supporting material. Interference under Section 260A requires demonstrated perversity or a substantial question of law.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether depreciation on purchased and installed software was allowable; (ii) whether deletion of the addition for alleged bogus purchases warranted interference; (iii) whether interest disallowance on advances was sustainable; (iv) whether loss on sale of raw materials was allowable; (v) whether addition for differences in balances was sustainable; (vi) whether disallowance of machinery repair expenses was sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether depreciation on purchased and installed software was allowable.

Analysis: The appellate authorities concurrently accepted the evidentiary material showing that the software had been purchased, developed or installed in the machinery systems and constituted an intangible asset. No perversity in those factual findings was shown.

Conclusion: Depreciation on the software was allowable, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether deletion of the addition for alleged bogus purchases warranted interference.

Analysis: The determination rested predominantly on the evidence and factual findings accepted by the Tribunal. The issue did not give rise to a substantial question of law.

Conclusion: Deletion of the addition for alleged bogus purchases was sustained, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether interest disallowance on advances was sustainable.

Analysis: The advances were found to have been made towards purchase of raw materials and plant and machinery, and the assessee had sufficient own funds. There was consequently no diversion of interest-bearing borrowings through the advances.

Conclusion: The interest disallowance was not sustainable, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iv): Whether loss on sale of raw materials was allowable.

Analysis: The loss was supported by detailed material, and the remand report did not dispute that the assessee had incurred it. The Tribunal's acceptance of the appellate finding was based on unrebutted facts.

Conclusion: The loss on sale of raw materials was allowable, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (v): Whether addition for differences in balances was sustainable.

Analysis: The reconciliation statement was supported by necessary evidence and was considered along with the remand report. No material discrepancy was shown to displace the concurrent factual findings deleting the addition.

Conclusion: The addition for differences in balances was not sustainable, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (vi): Whether disallowance of machinery repair expenses was sustainable.

Analysis: The deletion was founded on factual material and was consistent with the treatment of the same nature of expenditure in an earlier assessment year. No substantial question of law arose.

Conclusion: The disallowance of machinery repair expenses was not sustainable, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The challenges on the adjudicated questions disclosed no basis for interference with the Tribunal's factual and legal determinations; the issue concerning share and debenture issue expenses remained for consideration.

Ratio Decidendi: Concurrent factual findings of the appellate authorities do not warrant interference in an appeal under Section 260A absent demonstrated perversity or a substantial question of law.

---