https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=780815 ITAT held that the disallowance under s.36(1)(iii) was improper because the assessee had repaid Rs.7 crore of unsecured loans and incurred and disclosed the related interest expense in the balance sheet and paper book; the AO and CIT(A) overlooked these facts. Since the investments in mutual funds were funded from interest-bearing unsecured loans whose repayment and interest were reflected in records, the addition was set aside and the appeal was allowed. en-us Tue, 04 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 06 Nov 2025 08:47:01 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=780815 ITAT held that the disallowance under s.36(1)(iii) was improper because the assessee had repaid Rs.7 crore of unsecured loans and incurred and disclosed the related interest expense in the balance sheet and paper book; the AO and CIT(A) overlooked these facts. Since the investments in mutual funds were funded from interest-bearing unsecured loans whose repayment and interest were reflected in records, the addition was set aside and the appeal was allowed. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 04 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=780815