https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=16039 HC held that disallowance under s.36(1)(iii) for interest on borrowed capital was unjustified. The court found no evidence the firm advanced funds to the hotel out of borrowed money or paid interest to partners, and no finding of diversion of borrowed funds to non-business purposes. Where a common fund existed, presumption favored advances from the firm's own funds. The HC upheld the Appellate Tribunal's deletion of the additions and ruled no part of the interest should be disallowed. en-us Tue, 04 Nov 1997 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 11 Oct 2025 09:45:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=16039 HC held that disallowance under s.36(1)(iii) for interest on borrowed capital was unjustified. The court found no evidence the firm advanced funds to the hotel out of borrowed money or paid interest to partners, and no finding of diversion of borrowed funds to non-business purposes. Where a common fund existed, presumption favored advances from the firm's own funds. The HC upheld the Appellate Tribunal's deletion of the additions and ruled no part of the interest should be disallowed. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 04 Nov 1997 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=16039