https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=347429 The article explains that concurrent factual findings on interest and other expense disallowances did not disclose any debatable legal issue, because the borrowings had earlier been accepted as business-related and the loan-to-bond replacement did not justify disallowance; those proposed questions were therefore not treated as substantial questions of law. It also notes that the computation of book profit under Section 115JB raised a separate legal controversy concerning deletion of an adjustment and the interpretation of the relevant explanation, which was considered fit for examination as substantial questions of law. The resulting position is that the factual disallowance issues were not admitted, while the book profit questions under Section 115JB were admitted. en-us Tue, 22 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 05 Sep 2017 11:12:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=347429 The article explains that concurrent factual findings on interest and other expense disallowances did not disclose any debatable legal issue, because the borrowings had earlier been accepted as business-related and the loan-to-bond replacement did not justify disallowance; those proposed questions were therefore not treated as substantial questions of law. It also notes that the computation of book profit under Section 115JB raised a separate legal controversy concerning deletion of an adjustment and the interpretation of the relevant explanation, which was considered fit for examination as substantial questions of law. The resulting position is that the factual disallowance issues were not admitted, while the book profit questions under Section 115JB were admitted. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 22 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=347429