https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=216226 The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, upholding the Assessing Officer and CIT(A)'s findings on major issues. It determined that the sum of Rs. 269.13 lakhs was rightly attributed to plant and machinery, not licenses. The Rs. 160 lakhs paid to Bank of Madura was considered an application of income, not a diversion. Regarding interest under section 234B, the Tribunal directed a re-computation based on income determination. The deduction of Rs. 92.61 lakhs as revenue expenditure was allowed. The Assessing Officer was tasked with re-computing income and deciding on interest levies based on the final income calculation. en-us Mon, 22 Mar 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 01 Sep 2012 12:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=216226 The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, upholding the Assessing Officer and CIT(A)'s findings on major issues. It determined that the sum of Rs. 269.13 lakhs was rightly attributed to plant and machinery, not licenses. The Rs. 160 lakhs paid to Bank of Madura was considered an application of income, not a diversion. Regarding interest under section 234B, the Tribunal directed a re-computation based on income determination. The deduction of Rs. 92.61 lakhs as revenue expenditure was allowed. The Assessing Officer was tasked with re-computing income and deciding on interest levies based on the final income calculation. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 22 Mar 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=216226