https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=120089 Section 14A was treated as clarificatory, but proportionate disallowance in an indivisible banking business was held impermissible where no reliable nexus was shown between borrowed funds and exempt investments. Deduction under section 35D for public issue expenses was rejected because such expenditure did not fall within the statutory qualifying categories. A mere provision for bad and doubtful debts was not allowable as bad debt under section 36(1)(vii), since the provision is excluded from that provision. Club membership subscriptions taken in executives' names, broken period interest on securities, and a genuine bad debt write-off were treated as allowable business deductions. en-us Fri, 28 Jul 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 11 Mar 2024 13:08:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=120089 Section 14A was treated as clarificatory, but proportionate disallowance in an indivisible banking business was held impermissible where no reliable nexus was shown between borrowed funds and exempt investments. Deduction under section 35D for public issue expenses was rejected because such expenditure did not fall within the statutory qualifying categories. A mere provision for bad and doubtful debts was not allowable as bad debt under section 36(1)(vii), since the provision is excluded from that provision. Club membership subscriptions taken in executives' names, broken period interest on securities, and a genuine bad debt write-off were treated as allowable business deductions. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 28 Jul 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=120089