K. Raviraja Pandian, J.

By formulating the following substantial questions of law:

"i. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that depreciation should be allowed on standby spare parts even though they were not taken for use during the year?

ii. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that investment allowance should be allowed on standby spare parts even though they were not taken for use during the year?

iii. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the expenses related to obtaining fixed deposits from the public is a revenue expenditure liable for deduction ? And

iv. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that unabsorbed depreciation can be set off from income from house property?

"the Revenue has come up by way of appeals against the common order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 23. 2003 made in ITA.Nos.1160 to 1163/Mds/99 relating to the assessment years 1989-90 to 1992-93.

2. The facts culled out from the statement of facts in the memorandum of grounds of appeals read a