https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=65644 The appeal filed by the Revenue was partly allowed. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s direction not to deduct the capital subsidy from the cost of assets for depreciation purposes. However, it ruled that the interest income should be treated as income from other sources, not business income, for the purpose of deductions under sections 80HH and 80-I. The procedural defect in filing the appeal was not considered sufficient grounds for dismissal, as the Tribunal did not issue a defect memo to the appellant, and the substantive right of appeal was upheld. en-us Fri, 08 Feb 2002 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 18 Feb 2011 11:14:32 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=65644 The appeal filed by the Revenue was partly allowed. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s direction not to deduct the capital subsidy from the cost of assets for depreciation purposes. However, it ruled that the interest income should be treated as income from other sources, not business income, for the purpose of deductions under sections 80HH and 80-I. The procedural defect in filing the appeal was not considered sufficient grounds for dismissal, as the Tribunal did not issue a defect memo to the appellant, and the substantive right of appeal was upheld. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 08 Feb 2002 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=65644