← All Phrases

“Section 36(1)(iii)”

Section References (mined)Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)1,547 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 36(1)(iii) is CIT v. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. (313 ITR 340), cited in 2,118 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 36(1)(iii)

CIT v. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd.
313 ITR 340 · 2009 · High Court
2,118
citing judgments

Where an assessee claims that investments were made out of own funds, interest disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D may not apply if the assessee demonstrates the availability of sufficient interest-free funds to cover such investments.

S.A. Builders Ltd. v. CIT
288 ITR 1 · 2007 · Supreme Court
1,484
citing judgments

Interest paid on borrowed funds cannot be disallowed merely because the assessee made interest-free advances, provided those advances were made for business purposes and commercial expediency. The Revenue cannot dictate a businessman's commercial decisions, but the assessee bears the onus to prove the business expediency.

CIT v. HDFC Bank Ltd.
366 ITR 505 · 2014 · High Court
1,261
citing judgments

When an assessee possesses interest-free funds sufficient to cover investments yielding tax-free income, it is presumed that such investments were made from these interest-free funds, precluding disallowance of interest expenditure under Section 14A.

Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT
347 ITR 272 · 2012 · High Court
516
citing judgments

Disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the exempt income earned. The Assessing Officer must record satisfaction regarding the assessee's accounts before making any disallowance.

South Indian Bank Ltd. v. CIT
438 ITR 1 · 2021 · Supreme Court
508
citing judgments

The mixed fund theory is affirmed, holding that no disallowance of interest expenditure under Section 14A can be made if the assessee possesses sufficient non-interest bearing funds, such as capital and reserves, to cover investments made in tax-free securities.

CIT v. Reliance Industries Ltd.
410 ITR 466 · 2019 · Supreme Court
501
citing judgments

When mixed funds are available, interest-free advances are presumed to be made from the assessee's own interest-free funds, preventing disallowance of interest expenditure under section 36(1)(iii). This principle also applies to section 14A disallowance, where interest expenditure is not disallowed if surplus funds are available and no direct nexus is established with borrowed funds for investments earning exempt income.

CIT v. Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd.
254 ITR 377 · 2002 · High Court
417
citing judgments

When there is a nexus between an expenditure and the purpose of business, incurred on grounds of commercial expediency, the Revenue cannot question its reasonableness or assume the role of the businessman to compel profit maximization. This principle applies even if the business is not that of the assessee itself.

HDFC Bank Ltd. v. DCIT
383 ITR 529 · 2016 · High Court
408
citing judgments

Where an assessee has sufficient interest-free funds, investments yielding exempt income are presumed to be made out of such funds, precluding disallowance of related interest expenditure under section 14A.

Judgments citing Section 36(1)(iii)

Fairchem Organics Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. ACIT, Cir-15(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6143/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarfairchem Organics Acit Circle - Limited 15(1)(1), 253/P & 312, Village Vs. Aayakar Bhawan, M. Chekhala, Sanand K. Road, Churchgate, Kadi Highway, Taluka Mumbai-400 020 Sanand, Distt Ahmedabad, Gujarat – 382 115. Pan/Gir No. Aadcf6900E (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Saurabh Soparkar, Ld. Ar Revenue By Shri Ankit Tiwari, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 04.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 20.03.2026

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(iii)

income at Rs. 35,39,29,360/- by making an addition of Rs. 68,14,949/- on account of disallowance of interest under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. 3. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer observed from the balance sheet that the assessee had made ... demonstrate commercial expediency in granting such advances and also failed to establish nexus between own funds and advances. Relying upon the provisions of section 36(1)(iii) and the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S.A. Builders vs. CIT (Appeals) [2007] 288 ITR 1

M/S Gindlani Rice Mill, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer-1(2), Raipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 814/RPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur18 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.813 & 814/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2014-15 & 2016-17 M/S. Gindlani Rice Mill Tilda Neora, Village-Tulsi, Raipur (C.G.)-493 114 Pan: Aadfg6455G ........अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1(2), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: None (petition filed)For Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण "यायपीठ रायपुर म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR BEFORE SHRI PARTHA

M/S Gindlani Rice Mill, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer-1(2), Raipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 813/RPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur18 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.813 & 814/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2014-15 & 2016-17 M/S. Gindlani Rice Mill Tilda Neora, Village-Tulsi, Raipur (C.G.)-493 114 Pan: Aadfg6455G ........अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1(2), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: None (petition filed)For Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण "यायपीठ रायपुर म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR BEFORE SHRI PARTHA

Mega Automobiles Pvt Ltd., Ankleshwar vs. ACIT, Circle-2, Bharuch

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 988/SRT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat16 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar, Hon’Ble & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Shah, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Jay Uke, Sr. D.R
Section 10Section 251(1)(a)Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40Section 40A(3)

THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT “DB” BENCH, SURAT Before Dr. BRR Kumar, Hon’ble Vice President And Ms. Suchitra

Welkin Developers, Mumbai vs. Asstt. Comm of Income Tax, CC 4(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 5070/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Jagadish

For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Upadhyay
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 145ASection 250

High Court in case of CIT vs. Dhoomketu Builders & Developers (supra) held that setting up of business is enough for claiming deduction under section 36(1)(iii). It was further held that commencement of the real estate business starts with the acquisition of land or immovable property. Further, single bench ... wrong interpretation of law and therefore, the reasons given by the Assessing Officer to disallow the interest expenditure by applying the provisions of Section 36(1)(iii) is not in accordance with law. Further, the Tribunal noted that the assessee is into the business of Real Estate Development

Welkin Deveopers, Mumbai vs. Asstt.Comm. of Income Tax, CC 4(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 5069/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh UpadhyayFor Respondent: Shri S. Anbuselvan (Sr. AR)
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 145ASection 250

High Court in case of CIT vs. Dhoomketu Builders & Developers (supra) held that setting up of business is enough for claiming deduction under section 36(1)(iii). It was further held that commencement of the real estate business starts with the acquisition of land or immovable property. Further, single bench ... wrong interpretation of law and therefore, the reasons given by the Assessing Officer to disallow the interest expenditure by applying the provisions of Section 36(1)(iii) is not in accordance with law. Further, the Tribunal noted that the assessee is into the business of Real Estate Development

Bombay Minerals Limited, Khambhalia vs. DCIT, Central Circle 3(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue

ITA 5410/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

For Appellant: Mr. Gaurang R. Sanghavi (Virtually appeared)
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

erred in deleting the the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of notional interest disallowance of notional interest under section 36(1)(iii) without considering the fact that the assessee under section 36(1)(iii) without considering the fact that the assessee under section 36(1)(iii) without ... erred in deleting the disallowance of notional interest the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of notional interest under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act by placing reliance upon the under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act by placing reliance upon the under section 36(1

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Cicle-3(3), Mumbai vs. Bombay Minerals Limited, Gujarat

In the result, appeal of the Revenue

ITA 5409/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

For Appellant: Mr. Gaurang R. Sanghavi (Virtually appeared)
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

erred in deleting the the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of notional interest disallowance of notional interest under section 36(1)(iii) without considering the fact that the assessee under section 36(1)(iii) without considering the fact that the assessee under section 36(1)(iii) without ... erred in deleting the disallowance of notional interest the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of notional interest under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act by placing reliance upon the under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act by placing reliance upon the under section 36(1

Bombay Minerals Limited, Khambhaliya vs. DCIT, Central Circle 3(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue for AY 2016-17 is

ITA 5408/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

For Respondent: Mr. Gaurang R. Sanghavi (Virtually
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 35Section 35(1)(i)Section 36(1)(iii)

facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of notional interest under section 36(1)(iii) without considering the fact that the assessee has failed to furnish conclusive evidence to demonstrate that the investments were, in fact, made exclusively ... facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of notional interest under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act by placing reliance upon the Bombay Minerals Ltd. 3 ITA No. 5408, 5409 & 5410/MUM/2025 judgement of the Hon'ble Bombay High

Ufx Ventures Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Corporate Circle-3(2), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are

ITA 2273/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Ms. Shilpa Susan Kuriachan, CAFor Respondent: Ms. T. Mythili, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 37

disallowance of interest expenditure claimed by the assessee is not justified. 18. The Ld. AR further placed reliance on the provisions of section 36(1)(iii) of the Act and submitted that interest paid on capital borrowed for the purpose of business is allowable as deduction. Reliance was also placed ... materials available on record. The issue involved in the present :- 13 -: ITA Nos.2272 & 2273/CHNY/2025 appeal relates to the disallowance of interest expenditure under section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee had incurred interest expenditure on loans obtained from banks

Ufx Ventures Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Corporate Circle-3(2), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are

ITA 2272/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Ms. Shilpa Susan Kuriachan, CAFor Respondent: Ms. T. Mythili, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 37

disallowance of interest expenditure claimed by the assessee is not justified. 18. The Ld. AR further placed reliance on the provisions of section 36(1)(iii) of the Act and submitted that interest paid on capital borrowed for the purpose of business is allowable as deduction. Reliance was also placed ... materials available on record. The issue involved in the present :- 13 -: ITA Nos.2272 & 2273/CHNY/2025 appeal relates to the disallowance of interest expenditure under section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee had incurred interest expenditure on loans obtained from banks

M/S Vivek Construciton, Balco Nagar vs. ACIT Circle 1(1), Bilaspur

In the result, both appeals of assessee are allowed for statistical purposes as above

ITA 67/RPR/2026[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur06 Mar 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 66 & 67/Rpr/2026 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Years: 2021-22 & 2023-24) Vivek Construction, C-17, Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Housing Board Colony Balco Nagar, Tax, Circle-1(1), Ayakar Bhawan, Korba, Chhattisgarh, 495684. Vyapar Vihar, Bilaspur, Cg - 495001 Pan: Aaffv3390P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : None. (Adjournment Petition Filed) राज" की ओर से / Revenue By : Ms. Bharti Singh, Cit-Dr Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 20/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of : 06/03/2026 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am:

For Appellant: None. (Adjournment petition filed)For Respondent: Ms. Bharti Singh, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 145Section 250Section 250(6)Section 251(1)(a)Section 251(2)Section 36(1)(iii)

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, रायपुर "ायपीठ, रायपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR "ी पाथ" सारथी चौधरी, "ाियक सद

Vivek Construction, Balco Korba vs. ACIT Circle 1(1), Bilaspur

In the result, both appeals of assessee are allowed for statistical purposes as above

ITA 66/RPR/2026[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur06 Mar 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 66 & 67/Rpr/2026 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Years: 2021-22 & 2023-24) Vivek Construction, C-17, Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Housing Board Colony Balco Nagar, Tax, Circle-1(1), Ayakar Bhawan, Korba, Chhattisgarh, 495684. Vyapar Vihar, Bilaspur, Cg - 495001 Pan: Aaffv3390P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : None. (Adjournment Petition Filed) राज" की ओर से / Revenue By : Ms. Bharti Singh, Cit-Dr Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 20/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of : 06/03/2026 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am:

For Appellant: None. (Adjournment petition filed)For Respondent: Ms. Bharti Singh, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 145Section 250Section 250(6)Section 251(1)(a)Section 251(2)Section 36(1)(iii)

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, रायपुर "ायपीठ, रायपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR "ी पाथ" सारथी चौधरी, "ाियक सद

Deputy Commssioner of Income Tax (Central Circle) -3(3), Mumbai vs. M/S. Welspun Enterprises Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 1823/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Arun Khodpiady. Cit (Central Circle)-3(3) M/S. Welspun Enterprises Limited 4Th Floor, Welspun House, Room No. 404, Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, Mumbai-400 051 Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Vs. Delisle Road, S.O., Mumbai-400 013 Pan/Gir No. Aabcm 4107 C (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Harsh Kapadia & Shri Ajay Nagpal Respondent By : Shri Arun Kanti Datta – Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 28.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.03.2026 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey: Captioned Appeal By The Department, Arises Out Of Order Dated 17.01.2025 Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Mumbai, Pertaining To A.Y. 2015-16. 2. In Ground No. 1, The Department Has Challenged The Deletion Of Addition Of Rs.23,47,354/-, Being Addition Made By The Assessing Officer (A.O. For Short) On Account Of Alleged Non-Genuine Expenses.

For Appellant: Shri Harsh Kapadia &For Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta – CIT DR
Section 115JSection 132Section 153ASection 37(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT

Rajvi Enterprise Private Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-3(1)(3), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 314/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Narpat Parihar, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Urvashi Mandhan, Sr.DR
Section 250Section 36(1)(iii)Section 68

leading to double disallowance of Interest Expense to extent of Rs. 11,35,925 This amount already forms part of the disallowance under section 36(1)(iii) amounting to Rs. 12,62,2025. 1.2. The Honourable CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that appellant has repaid the amount

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 4(3), Kolkata vs. Avima Exports Private Limited, Kolkata

Appeal stands dismissed

ITA 1599/KOL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

Section 131Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM AND SHRIPRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JM ITA

DCIT Central Circle-1(1), Ahmedabad vs. Crystal Ceramic Industries Limited, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 860/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “B” BENCH Before: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar, Judicial Member And Shri Narendra Prasad

DCIT Central Circle 1(1) Ahmedabad, Ahmedabad vs. Crystal Ceramic Industries Limited, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 859/AHD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “B” BENCH Before: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar, Judicial Member And Shri Narendra Prasad

Crystal Ceramics Industries Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Central Circle-1(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 682/AHD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “B” BENCH Before: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar, Judicial Member And Shri Narendra Prasad

ACIT Central Circle 2(3), Ahmedabad vs. Intas Pharmaceuticals Limited, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1842/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaasst. Commissioner Of M/S. Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Vs. Income-Tax, Corporate House, S.G. Highway, Central Circle 2(3), Nr. Sola Bridge, Thaltej, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad-380 054 [Pan : Aaaci 5120 L] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant Represented By : Shri Sher Singh, Cit (Dr) Respondent Represented By: Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate & Ms. Urvashi Sodhan, Ar Date Of Hearing 07.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 24.02.2026 O R D E R Per Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble:-

Section 250

earlier order and uphold the relief granted by the Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, Ground No. 14 is dismissed. Ground No. 15 – Disallowance under Section 36(1)(iii) 10. This ground relates to deletion of disallowance of interest expenditure made by the Assessing Officer under section 36(1)(iii ... presumption arises that investments are made out of such interest-free funds, and in the absence of contrary material, no disallowance under section 36(1)(iii) is warranted. 10.3 In the year under consideration also, the Revenue has not brought any material to establish a nexus between borrowed funds