Tribunal allows some appeals, remands issue for further examination under rule 8D(2)(ii), dismisses Revenue's appeals.

The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeals, confirming the disallowance under rule 8D(2)(iii) for administrative and common expenses related to exempted income investments. However, it remanded the issue of indirect interest expenditure under rule 8D(2)(ii) back to the Assessing Officer for further examination, requiring proof of the availability of interest-free funds for investments generating exempted income. The Revenue's appeals were dismissed as withdrawn, and the case was remanded for fresh consideration based on the Tribunal's directions.

---

---

Issues:
- Whether the CIT(A) was justified in confirming part of the addition made u/s 14A of the I.T.Act r.w.r.8D of the I.T. Rules.

Analysis:
1. The judgment involves six appeals by the assessee and four appeals by the Revenue against the consolidated order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) for the assessment years 2008-2009 to 2013-2014. The Revenue sought to withdraw its appeals, which were dismissed, leading to the adjudication of the assessee's appeal.

2. The common issue raised in the assessee's appeals was the justification of confirming part of the addition made u/s 14A of the I.T.Act r.w.r.8D of the I.T. Rules. The Assessing Officer disallowed expenditure invoking rule 8D(2)(ii) and rule 8D(2)(iii) of the I.T.Rules for the relevant assessment years.

3. The CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance made u/s 14A of the I.T.Act r.w. rule 8D(2) but restricted it to the exempted income earned during the assessment years. The assessee, aggrieved by this order, appealed before the Tribunal, arguing that interest-free funds were used for investments generating exempted income.

4. The Tribunal considered the disallowances made under rules 8D(2)(ii) and 8D(2)(iii) of the I.T.Rules. It confirmed the disallowance under rule 8D(2)(iii) for administrative and common expenses related to exempted income investments, emphasizing the complexity and strategic nature of investment decisions.

5. Regarding the disallowance of indirect interest expenditure under rule 8D(2)(ii), the Tribunal noted the assessee's claim of having interest-free funds but found it unsubstantiated. It directed a remand to the Assessing Officer for further examination, requiring the assessee to provide a cash flow statement to prove the availability of interest-free funds for investments yielding exempted income.

6. Ultimately, the Tribunal partly allowed the appeals filed by the assessee for statistical purposes and dismissed the Revenue's appeals as withdrawn. The case was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration based on the directions provided in the judgment.

---