JUDGMENT : M.R. Shah, J. 1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad "A" Bench in ITA No. 1384/AHD/2012 for the Assessment Year 2008-09, revenue has preferred the present Tax Appeal with the following substantial questions of law; (a) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT erred in directing the AO to delete the addition of Rs. 3,00,544/- being excess payment of interest expenditure, without appreciating that the assessee did not establish the commercial expediency of making payment of interest at @ 15% instead of 12.50%? (b) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the ITAT erred in directing the AO to allow set off/carry forward of unabsorbed depreciation as claimed by the assessee, without appreciating that nowhere in the provision of Section 32(2) of the Act as amended by Finance Act, 2001 w.e.f. 01/04/2002 or in Board's Circular No. 14 of 2001, it is mentioned that carry forward of unabsorbed depreciation of A.Y. 1997-98 up to A.Y. 2001-02, which could not be set off against profit and gain of business of A.Yrs. preceding A.Y. 2002-03, can be set off against profit and gain of the business of A.Y. 2002-03 & onwards in accordance with provision of Section 32(2) of the Act as amended by Finance Act, 2001 w.e.f. 01/04/2002? (c) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT erred in directing the AO to allow set off/carry forward of unabsorbed depreciation as claimed by the assessee, without appreciating that unabsorbed depreciation of A.Yrs. 1997-98 up to 2001-02, could be set off against profit and gain of business of A.Yrs. 2002-03 & onwards subject to maximum of 08 years in accordance with the provision of Section 32(2) of the Act as amended by Finance Act No. 02 of 1996 w.e.f. 01/04/1997 and not in accordance with the provision of Section 32(2) of the Act, 2001 w.e.f. 01/04/2002? 2002-03 & onwards subject to maximum of 08 years in accordance with the provision of Section 32(2) of the Act as amended by Finance Act No. 02 of 1996 w.e.f. 01/04/1997 and not in accordance with the provision of Section 32(2) of the Act, 2001 w.e.f. 01/04/2002? (d) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT erred in directing the A.O. to allow set off/carry forward of unabsorbed depreciation as claimed by the assessee, without appreciating that the assessee's claim of unabsorbed depreciation of A.Y. 1997-98 to 1999-2000 against profit and gain of business of A.Y. 2008-09 under the provision of Section 32(2) of the Act as amended by Finance Act, 2001 w.e.f. 01/04/2002 was not in accordance with the said amendment. (e) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT erred in directing the A.O. to allow set off/carry forward of unabsorbed depreciation as claimed by the assessee, without appreciating that as on 01/04/2008, there remained no unabsorbed depreciation of A.Y. 1997-98 to 1999-2000 to be set off against the profit and gains of business of the assessee for A.Y. 2008-09, in accordance with the provision of Section 32(2) of the Act as amended by Finance Act No. 02 of 1996 w.e.f. 01/04/1997, since as on 01/04/2008, the period of 08 years for carry forward of unabsorbed depreciation of A.Y. 1997-98 to 1999-2000 ceased to exist? 2. We have heard Shri K.M. Parikh, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the revenue. At the outset, it is required to be noted that so far as proposed questions of law Nos. (b) to (e) are concerned, the same are covered against the revenue in light of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax I Vs. Integra Engineering India Ltd. rendered in Tax Appeal No. 380/2013. Similar questions are held against the revenue by the aforesaid decisions. 3. Shri K.M. Parikh, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the revenue is not in a position to dispute the above. 4. In view of the above, the present Tax Appeal qua proposed questions Nos. (b) to (e) deserve to be dismissed and is according dismissed. 5. Similar questions are held against the revenue by the aforesaid decisions. 3. Shri K.M. Parikh, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the revenue is not in a position to dispute the above. 4. In view of the above, the present Tax Appeal qua proposed questions Nos. (b) to (e) deserve to be dismissed and is according dismissed. 5. Now so far as proposed question No. (a) is concerned, at the outset, it is required to be noted that the respondent - assessee paid the interest at the rate of 15% and claimed the deduction towards the interest expenditure. However, the Assessing Officer was of the opinion that considering the bank interest prevailing at the relevant time the respondent - assessee ought to have paid the interest at the rate of 12.5%, and therefore, the Assessing Officer made the addition of Rs. 3,00,544/- for the excess payment of interest expenditure. The aforesaid addition came to be confirmed by the learned CIT(A). However, the learned tribunal by the impugned judgment and order has directed to delete the addition of Rs. 3,00,544/- being excess amount of interest expenditure observing that it was commercial expediency of the respondent - assessee, which is required to be considered and even the interest paid by the respondent - assessee at 15% against 12.5% as claimed by the Assessing Officer cannot be said to be on higher side, and therefore, the learned tribunal deleted the addition of Rs. 3,00,544/-. 6. Having heard Shri K.M. Parikh, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the revenue and the reasoning given by the learned tribunal and more particularly considering the fact that the respondent - assessee paid the interest at the rate of 15% and the Assessing Officer was of the opinion that the assessee ought to have paid the interest at the rate of 12.5% and as observed by the learned tribunal the respondent - assessee paid the interest at the rate of 15% looking to the commercial expediency, it cannot be said that the learned tribunal had committed any error in deleting the addition of Rs. 3,00,554/-. We are complete agreement with the view taken by the learned tribunal. No substantial question of law arises as sought to be proposed by the revenue. In view of the above and for the reasons stated hereinabove, the present Tax Appeal deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.