https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=12327 Delhi HC held that interest on borrowed funds was not deductible where the assessee failed to establish that the borrowings were not diverted for interest-free advances to a subsidiary and others; the burden lay on the assessee to show the requisite factual nexus and business purpose, so the disallowance was sustained. It also held that commission or market-supervision payments made after abolition of the sole-selling agency were not allowable as business expenditure because the arrangement was found to be designed to defeat Government policy and circumvent the statutory abolition of sole-selling agencies; expenditure incurred under such a policy-violating arrangement could not be treated as deductible. en-us Tue, 06 Aug 2002 00:00:00 +0530 Sun, 21 Feb 2010 16:51:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=12327 Delhi HC held that interest on borrowed funds was not deductible where the assessee failed to establish that the borrowings were not diverted for interest-free advances to a subsidiary and others; the burden lay on the assessee to show the requisite factual nexus and business purpose, so the disallowance was sustained. It also held that commission or market-supervision payments made after abolition of the sole-selling agency were not allowable as business expenditure because the arrangement was found to be designed to defeat Government policy and circumvent the statutory abolition of sole-selling agencies; expenditure incurred under such a policy-violating arrangement could not be treated as deductible. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 06 Aug 2002 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=12327