https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=12639 The HC held that it could not examine whether interest already capitalised in the accounts could nonetheless be claimed as revenue expenditure, as the issue was not urged before the Tribunal and s 260A(6)(a) confines the HC to questions arising from the Tribunal's order; that question was not entertained. On deduction of interest under s 36(1)(iii) for borrowings relating to a fertiliser unit, the Tribunal's finding of unity of control, interdependence, and interconnection justified treating it as the same business; the deduction was sustained. On interest on borrowings used for investment in tax-free bonds, evidence showed the investment was in the course of business; the deduction was sustained. On guest house expenditure under s 37(4), partial allowance was upheld. The appeal was dismissed. en-us Wed, 03 Apr 2002 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 26 Dec 2025 15:40:48 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=12639 The HC held that it could not examine whether interest already capitalised in the accounts could nonetheless be claimed as revenue expenditure, as the issue was not urged before the Tribunal and s 260A(6)(a) confines the HC to questions arising from the Tribunal's order; that question was not entertained. On deduction of interest under s 36(1)(iii) for borrowings relating to a fertiliser unit, the Tribunal's finding of unity of control, interdependence, and interconnection justified treating it as the same business; the deduction was sustained. On interest on borrowings used for investment in tax-free bonds, evidence showed the investment was in the course of business; the deduction was sustained. On guest house expenditure under s 37(4), partial allowance was upheld. The appeal was dismissed. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 03 Apr 2002 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=12639