Allowing the appeal the Tribunal held that purchase of land for construction of new office premises could not be said to be for extension of the assessee’s business and the disallowance of interest was not justified because the funds were borrowed for continuation or expansion of existing business and not for extension of existing business. The proviso to section 36(1)(iii) was not applicable because the amendment in the proviso was made by the Finance Act, 2015, with effect from April 1, 2016 in accordance with which the words “for extension of” were omitted and up to the assessment year 2015-16, the proviso was applicable only in those cases where borrowed funds was used for acquisition of asset for extension of existing business. For the assessment year 2009-10, this proviso was not applicable and the disallowance was to be deleted.  (AY.2011-12)