IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA TAX APPEAL NO. 4 OF 2010 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ... Appellant Versus FOMENTO RESORTS AND HOTELS LTD ... Respondent Ms. Asha Dessai, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Nishant Thakkar with Mr. Sudesh Usgaonkar, Advocates for the respondent. Coram:- S. J. VAZIFDAR & U. D. SALVI, JJ. Date:- 21st April, 2010 P.C. The tax appeal does not raise any substantial question of law. 2. There is no warrant for coming to the conclusion that there was any misrepresentation in the return regarding the value of the stock. The basis for adding an amount to the declared value of the stock was that in the declaration to the bank for the purpose of availing a loan the value was shown at about Rs.10 lacs more than that stated in the return. It was obviously a floating stock hypothecated in favour of the bank. The return was filed on 30th November, 1997 whereas the declaration to the bank was prior thereto, on 10th April, 1997. Considering the nature of the stock, the quantum and the value thereof is bound to fluctuate from time to time. No question of law arises in this regard. 3. The disallowance of deduction on account of an interest free loan to a sister concern also does not raise any question of law. As stated in the order of the CIT itself, the loan was in respect of the business interest of the respondent Assessee in the research carried out by the sister concern. There is nothing to contradict the statement on facts. The ITAT has in this regard followed the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of S. A. Builder Vs. CIT; 288 ITR 1, wherein it is held that if the advance is made in respect of a business interest of the Assessee, deduction is allowable under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. 4. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. S. J. VAZIFDAR, J. U. D. SALVI, J. SMA