IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL (LODG.) NO.354 OF 2003 INCOME TAX APPEAL (LODG.) NO.354 OF 2003 INCOME TAX APPEAL (LODG.) NO.354 OF 2003 The Commissioner of Income tax ..Appellant. V/s. M/s.Nandini Piramal Inv. Ltd. ..Respondent. Mr.A.D. Kanugo for appellant. Mr.Rajesh Shah for respondent. CORAM : H.L.GOKHALE AND CORAM : H.L.GOKHALE AND CORAM : H.L.GOKHALE AND J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. DATED : 14TH NOVEMBER, 2006. DATED : 14TH NOVEMBER, 2006. DATED : 14TH NOVEMBER, 2006. P.C. :- P.C. :- P.C. :- Heard Mr.Kanugo in support of the motion. Mr.Shah appears for the respondent. The appeal raises the following questions of law. 1) Whether the CIT(A) is entitled to admit additional evidence in contravention of rule 46A ? 2) Whether the interest on unsecured loans amounting to Rs.7,29,673/- raised from sister concerns are entitled for deduction as business expenses if the loans are not utilised for the purpose of business during the year ? 2. Mr.Kanugo does not dispute that as far as the second question is concerned, the same was not raised before the Tribunal as well. So far as the first question is concerned, it is seen from the order passed by the Tribunal that it has only corrected an error and done nothing other than that. There is no question of law arising as such. The Tribunal has noted that the assessee has produced a statement requiring correction. This does not amount in any way contravention of rule 46A of admitting additional evidence. 3. Appeal is dismissed. (H.L.GOKHALE, J.) (H.L.GOKHALE, J.) (H.L.GOKHALE, J.) (J.P.DEVADHAR, J.) (J.P.DEVADHAR, J.) (J.P.DEVADHAR, J.)