https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=771842 ITAT Chandigarh upheld CIT(A)'s order allowing interest expenditure deduction under Section 36(1)(iii). AO failed to demonstrate that interest-bearing funds were not used for business purposes, merely citing increased inventory and bank balances without proper analysis. Regarding TDS mismatch in Form 26AS, CIT(A) found assessee had reconciled discrepancies and referred matter to AO for verification. Addition of sundry creditors was deleted as increases related to genuine business transactions with Ford India Ltd and insurance renewals. Revenue's challenge to CIT(A)'s order validity was rejected as misconceived, lacking supporting evidence or documentation. en-us Tue, 11 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 31 May 2025 08:47:03 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=771842 ITAT Chandigarh upheld CIT(A)'s order allowing interest expenditure deduction under Section 36(1)(iii). AO failed to demonstrate that interest-bearing funds were not used for business purposes, merely citing increased inventory and bank balances without proper analysis. Regarding TDS mismatch in Form 26AS, CIT(A) found assessee had reconciled discrepancies and referred matter to AO for verification. Addition of sundry creditors was deleted as increases related to genuine business transactions with Ford India Ltd and insurance renewals. Revenue's challenge to CIT(A)'s order validity was rejected as misconceived, lacking supporting evidence or documentation. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 11 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=771842