The Hon’ble Tribunal held that the advance was indeed for business purposes and that the assessee had successfully recovered the amount through legal means ably supported substantial evidence. Deletion of disallowance is affirmed. (AY. 2012-13, 2013-14)
ITO v. Jamna Auto Industries; (2024) 111 ITR 569 /229 TTJ 209/239 DTR 57 (Chd)(Trib.)
S. 36(1)(iii) : Interest on borrowed capital-Consistent methodology Interest-free advance given to an individual for the purpose of business was held to be genuine and allowable.