- (1.) In all these appeals, common judgment, but relating to different assessment years, has been challenged and substantial questions of law involved therein are same, hence all are being decided by this common judgment.
(2.) Heard Sri Alok Mathur, Advocate, for Revenue-appellant and perused the record.
(3.) All these appeals under Section 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1961") have arisen from judgment and order dated 11.04.2005 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as "Tribunal") and were admitted on the following substantial questions of law: "I. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is justified in holding that the assessee's claim for deduction of interest was allowable in full, despite the fact that the assessee was unable to disprove the use of borrowed funds for non business purposes. II. Whether on the fact and in the circumstances of the case the ratio of decision of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in cases of CIT v. Saraya Sugar Mill Pvt. Ltd. (1992) 193 ITR 575 and CIT v. H.R. Sugar Factory P. Ltd. (1991) 187 ITR 363 are not applicable to this case. III. Whether on the fact and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is justified in directing the assessing officer to allow the entire expenditure on machinery repairs, when as per the terms of agreement the liability of such expenses was on hirer only." ;