<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2013 (12) TMI 189 - ITAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=240524</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeals, deleting the disallowances made under Section 14A and for interest on borrowed funds. The Tribunal found that the investments were part of the assessee&#039;s business, and the interest on loans was business expenditure. The disallowance under Rule 8D was not justified as the investments were not solely for earning exempt income. The appeals were allowed in favor of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 17 Oct 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 06 Dec 2013 07:46:32 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=338237" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (12) TMI 189 - ITAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=240524</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeals, deleting the disallowances made under Section 14A and for interest on borrowed funds. The Tribunal found that the investments were part of the assessee&#039;s business, and the interest on loans was business expenditure. The disallowance under Rule 8D was not justified as the investments were not solely for earning exempt income. The appeals were allowed in favor of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 17 Oct 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=240524</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>