Artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly used to analyse corporate data, forecast commercial outcomes, identify compliance risks and rank strategic alternatives. These capabilities can improve the speed and breadth of board-level analysis, but they also raise a fundamental question of company law: when an algorithm materially influences a corporate decision, who remains accountable for the outcome? This paper examines that question principally through section 166 of the Companies Act, 2013, which requires directors to act in good faith, exercise care, skill and diligence, and apply independent judgment. It argues that AI may support directors but cannot displace their fiduciary role. The central distinction is between using a system as an analytical aid and allowing its output to become a substitute for genuine deliberation. The paper considers automation bias, limited explainability, data quality, vendor dependence and the risk of fragmented accountability. It then draws carefully bounded lessons from the European Union’s AI regulatory framework and Indian financial regulation, before proposing governance measures concerning material-use disclosure, board competence, meaningful explanations, documentation, validation and continuing human responsibility. The paper concludes that corporate governance can become increasingly algorithm-assisted, but the legal responsibility for corporate judgment must remain traceable to accountable human decision-makers.