he assessee declared the total income at Rs. Nil under the normal provisions and book profits of Rs. 6.70 Crores under Section 115JB of the I. T. Act, 1961.A.O. was of the view that out of the total income as reflected in the profit and loss account of the assessee, the income from sub-lease of land amounting to Rs. 7.15 Crores had to be assessed under the head “incomes from other sources” rather than “business income”. He was, therefore, of the opinion that the 'business loss' could not be set off against such income. The A.O. was of the view that in the absence of any business activities, the assessee was not entitled to claim the business loss. The A.O. further disallowed the interest on borrowed capital on the ground that the assessee could not substantiate its claim that the borrowed capital was exclusively utilised for acquisition of construction of the property in question. CIT(A) following thedecisionin the appellant's owncases for perevious AY's, accepted the contention of the assessee and set aside the order of the A.O. on this ground. ITAT also has already held in favour of the assessee, following the rule of consistency, no questions as framed in the present appeal give rise to any substantial question of law.