https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=242702 The Tribunal upheld the first appellate authority's decisions, dismissing the revenue's appeal on both issues. Regarding disallowance under section 14A of the Income Tax Act, the Tribunal emphasized the lack of proof of borrowed funds usage for investments and absence of regular investment activity. For the disallowance of deduction under section 35D, the Tribunal agreed with the principle of consistency in allowing similar claims in previous assessment years. The judgment underscored the significance of factual findings and assessing officer's satisfaction in such matters. en-us Fri, 05 Jul 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Sun, 19 Jan 2014 09:48:34 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=242702 The Tribunal upheld the first appellate authority's decisions, dismissing the revenue's appeal on both issues. Regarding disallowance under section 14A of the Income Tax Act, the Tribunal emphasized the lack of proof of borrowed funds usage for investments and absence of regular investment activity. For the disallowance of deduction under section 35D, the Tribunal agreed with the principle of consistency in allowing similar claims in previous assessment years. The judgment underscored the significance of factual findings and assessing officer's satisfaction in such matters. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 05 Jul 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=242702