https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=235543 The HC upheld the Tribunal's cancellation of disallowance under Section 14A, finding no proof that borrowed funds were used for earning dividend income, as the assessee had sufficient own funds. The Court allowed the deduction under Section 10(2)(xv) related to corporate debt restructuring expenses, holding them to be revenue in nature and incurred wholly for business purposes, permitting spreading over six years. Regarding income under Section 28(iv), the Court ruled that remission of unsecured loans was not taxable as the assessee was not engaged in loan business, and such remission did not arise from business activities. All issues were decided against Revenue. en-us Tue, 25 Jun 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 08 Aug 2025 15:08:01 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=235543 The HC upheld the Tribunal's cancellation of disallowance under Section 14A, finding no proof that borrowed funds were used for earning dividend income, as the assessee had sufficient own funds. The Court allowed the deduction under Section 10(2)(xv) related to corporate debt restructuring expenses, holding them to be revenue in nature and incurred wholly for business purposes, permitting spreading over six years. Regarding income under Section 28(iv), the Court ruled that remission of unsecured loans was not taxable as the assessee was not engaged in loan business, and such remission did not arise from business activities. All issues were decided against Revenue. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 25 Jun 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=235543