https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=12551 Concurrent factual findings on investment allowance and notional interest under the Income-tax Act could not be disturbed in section 260A proceedings because no substantial question of law arose. The Tribunal treated the investment allowance dispute as factual, finding that installation of the plant and machinery was completed on 31 March 1988 and that the main machinery had been imported earlier under a 1986 agreement; the High Court declined interference. On notional interest, the Tribunal accepted that the interest-free advance to a subsidiary was given to satisfy bank stipulations and was in the nature of quasi-equity; no perversity or legal error was shown, so deletion of the addition was upheld. en-us Thu, 14 Mar 2002 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 20 May 2009 10:34:08 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=12551 Concurrent factual findings on investment allowance and notional interest under the Income-tax Act could not be disturbed in section 260A proceedings because no substantial question of law arose. The Tribunal treated the investment allowance dispute as factual, finding that installation of the plant and machinery was completed on 31 March 1988 and that the main machinery had been imported earlier under a 1986 agreement; the High Court declined interference. On notional interest, the Tribunal accepted that the interest-free advance to a subsidiary was given to satisfy bank stipulations and was in the nature of quasi-equity; no perversity or legal error was shown, so deletion of the addition was upheld. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 14 Mar 2002 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=12551