- (1.) This appeal by the Revenue is against a decision of the Tribunal sustaining the Assessee's claim for deduction under two heads. The Assessee's plea to treat certain advances written off as business loss has been permitted. Second head relates to sale of the Assessee's immovable property situated at a location known as Ghatkopar in the city of Mumbai. The assessment year involved is 2004-05. The Assessing Officer disallowed the deduction claimed under both these heads in the assessment order dated 29th December, 2006. The Commissioner, however, went with the Assessing Officer in the Assessee's appeal on the point of treating written off advance as business loss. But on the question of sale of land and other items, which appears to be within the same factory campus, he sustained the Assessee's stand that it was not slump sale. On further appeal, the Tribunal decided both the issues in favour of the Assessee.
(2.) We admit the appeal on the following substantial questions of law: "(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. Tribunal has erred in law as well as on facts in directing not to consider the sale of property at Ghatkopar as a slump sale within the meaning under section 2(42C) of the ? (iv) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. Tribunal has erred in law as well as on fact in allowing the aforesaid amount of Rs. 4,15,63,688/- and Rs. 2,73,866/- written off in P/L account represent loss and is deductible under the provision of Section 28 of the I.T. Act?"
(3.) There were three other suggested questions formulated by the Revenue but in our view those questions are covered by the two points on which we are admitting the appeal.;