https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=241902 Interest disallowance under section 36(1)(iii) was stated to be unsustainable where the assessee had sufficient surplus and interest-free business funds for acquisition of the asset, because the borrowing was not shown to have financed that acquisition. The commentary also states that disallowance under section 40(1)(ia) for non-deduction of tax at source on payment to a non-resident was unwarranted where the payment was covered by the applicable DTAA and was not chargeable to tax in India, so no withholding obligation under section 195 arose. On that basis, the Revenue's appeal was described as failing on both additions. en-us Tue, 31 Dec 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 03 Jan 2014 19:19:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=241902 Interest disallowance under section 36(1)(iii) was stated to be unsustainable where the assessee had sufficient surplus and interest-free business funds for acquisition of the asset, because the borrowing was not shown to have financed that acquisition. The commentary also states that disallowance under section 40(1)(ia) for non-deduction of tax at source on payment to a non-resident was unwarranted where the payment was covered by the applicable DTAA and was not chargeable to tax in India, so no withholding obligation under section 195 arose. On that basis, the Revenue's appeal was described as failing on both additions. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 31 Dec 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=241902