Firm's claim that proportionate interest should be allowed was...

Firm's claim that proportionate interest should be allowed was rejected for failure to prove that advances or interest free loans were used for business purposes; absence of bank evidence and lack of direct nexus led to disallowance of interest. An unsecured loan claimed as credit was treated as unexplained because the assessee did not establish the lender's identity or creditworthiness; the addition under unexplained credits was therefore sustained. Payments characterised as partner remuneration were held inconsistent with the original partnership terms and remuneration limits under partnership law, so the disallowance of those payments was upheld.

---