https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=62398 The appellate tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, dismissing the Revenue's appeal and the assessee's cross-objection. It held that both the interest claimed as expenditure under section 36(1)(iii) and the railway siding expenditure were debatable issues requiring further examination. The tribunal emphasized that prima facie adjustments should only be made for claims clearly inadmissible on the face of the return, as per CBDT Circular No. 689, concluding that these claims were not suitable for such adjustment under section 143(1)(a). en-us Thu, 30 Aug 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 19 Jan 2011 17:07:48 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=62398 The appellate tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, dismissing the Revenue's appeal and the assessee's cross-objection. It held that both the interest claimed as expenditure under section 36(1)(iii) and the railway siding expenditure were debatable issues requiring further examination. The tribunal emphasized that prima facie adjustments should only be made for claims clearly inadmissible on the face of the return, as per CBDT Circular No. 689, concluding that these claims were not suitable for such adjustment under section 143(1)(a). Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 30 Aug 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=62398