ORDER :

ARAVIND KUMAR, J.

1. This Court while admitting the appeal had formulated the following substantial questions of law :

“(B) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was right in law in confirming disallowance of deduction u/s. 36(1)(viii) for Rs.9,90,00,000?

(C) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was right in law in holding that `dairying' is not industry or agricultural development or development of industrial facility for the purpose of Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961?

(D) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was right in law in holding that in absence of share capital, deduction u/s. 36(1)(viii) cannot be allowed?

(E) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was right in law in concluding that grant given to various cooperative societies is not deductible expenditure u/s.36(1)(xii) of the Act and holding that the same are not in the nature of expenditure?

(F) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was right in law in holding that in absence of approval to deed of variation the payment of Rs.5,61,56,408/- being con