TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (8) TMI 966
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ugh instant appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is seeking setting aside of order dated 31.01.2025 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh. 2. The appellant has raised following questions for adjudication by this Court:- (i) Whether on facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT is right in law in permitting the change in method of accounting with regard to the valuation of closing stock from absorption cost method to direct cost method? OR Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was right in holding that the change in the method of accounting with regard to the valuation of stock is bonafide and not with an intention to defeat the Revenue, when....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was right in law in upholding the order of the CIT (A) in deleting the addition made on account of deemed interest from deposits given to the landlords for leased premises hired for the use of certain directors and top employees of the assessee? (vi) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT is correct in law in holding that interest on capital borrowed for acquisition of new machinery and overhead expenses incurred during trial run period in expansion of its existing business are expenses of revenue nature? 3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 4. Questions No. (i) and (iii):- learned counsel for the appellant concedes tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s pleat in this respect stands rejected. As regards the reliance of the Assessing Officer on the ratio laid down in the case of CIT Vs. United General Trust Ltd.- 200-ITR-488(s) is concerned, the Assessing Officer has not apportioned any management expenses towards the earning of the dividend. It is, therefore, appears to have been presumed by the Assessing Officer that no such expenses were apportion-able. I failed to subscribe to this view of the Assessing Officer as substantial investment in purchase and sale of units and in the portfolio Management account has been done, which would definitely entail the utilization of time and effort on the part of the management of company who are drawing substantial remuneration and perquisites from ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....4 Details of profit/loss on sale of investment:- Sr. No. Date of Purchase No. of Units Sale price Purchase price 1. 9.4.91 2130000 31291830 31152315 2. 1.6.91 10400000 135200000 137092800 3. 15.7.91 11000000 169070000 167136866 4. 8.8.91 2500000 33375000 33175000 5. 29.8.91 2400000 32450400 32184000 6. 29.10.91 - 30364318 29995704 Total 28430000 431751548 430736685 The scrutiny reveals that except for the purchase of units on 30-05-91 for a total purchase of Rs. 16,32,54,000/-, the other purchases are financed out of the sale of the sale of the units already available with the appellant. The scruti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... question of fact is involved. There is no question of law. The Revenue succeeded to link part of investment with borrowed money and failed to link remaining investment with borrowed money. In the absence of evidence, the entire interest liability could not be deducted from dividend income. It is pure question of fact that how much borrowed money related to investment. The authorities below examined each investment vis-à-vis borrowed money. This Court finds that no question of law much less substantial question of law is involved. Accordingly, appeal qua said question is hereby dismissed. 6. Question No. (iv):- 6.1 Learned counsel for the assessee submits that aforesaid issue was answered by Tribunal in favour of assessee vide ....