https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=205417 Rule 8D was held inapplicable retrospectively for section 14A disallowance, so the computation had to be reconsidered for the relevant year. Section 40(a)(ia) was treated as applicable to contractor labour charges even where the expenditure had been capitalised and later reflected through depreciation, because the TDS obligation remained relevant. Loss on chit funds was considered dependent on whether the borrowed chit proceeds were used for business purposes, requiring fresh factual inquiry. Legal and professional charges also required reconsideration on the basis of the material and TDS position before the lower authorities. en-us Wed, 29 Dec 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 09 Jul 2011 14:40:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=205417 Rule 8D was held inapplicable retrospectively for section 14A disallowance, so the computation had to be reconsidered for the relevant year. Section 40(a)(ia) was treated as applicable to contractor labour charges even where the expenditure had been capitalised and later reflected through depreciation, because the TDS obligation remained relevant. Loss on chit funds was considered dependent on whether the borrowed chit proceeds were used for business purposes, requiring fresh factual inquiry. Legal and professional charges also required reconsideration on the basis of the material and TDS position before the lower authorities. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 29 Dec 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=205417