https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=9403 The judgment concluded that for each assessment year involved, the recipient of the interest-free loan was not a firm of relatives; the advances were made for business purposes within the meaning of section 36(1)(iii); there was a regular course of business between the assessee and the firm; the advances were made for commercial expedience and business purposes; the findings of the Tribunal were not perverse; and the advances were made from the mixed account, presumed to be from the assessee's own funds. Therefore, the assessee was entitled to the benefit of section 36(1)(iii). The appeal was dismissed for the respective assessment years involved. en-us Thu, 30 Jun 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 22 Jun 2009 17:18:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=9403 The judgment concluded that for each assessment year involved, the recipient of the interest-free loan was not a firm of relatives; the advances were made for business purposes within the meaning of section 36(1)(iii); there was a regular course of business between the assessee and the firm; the advances were made for commercial expedience and business purposes; the findings of the Tribunal were not perverse; and the advances were made from the mixed account, presumed to be from the assessee's own funds. Therefore, the assessee was entitled to the benefit of section 36(1)(iii). The appeal was dismissed for the respective assessment years involved. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 30 Jun 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=9403