<?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>2014 (7) TMI 1113 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169152</link>
    <description>Disallowance under section 14A read with rule 8D required fresh verification of the assessee&#039;s fund flow and balance-sheet materials before any common interest or administrative expenditure could be computed. Direct interest relatable to allowable income under section 57(iii) had first to be segregated, and interest linked to car loans, housing loans, interest-bearing advances, and taxable investments had to be identified separately. Investments that did not yield dividend or long-term capital gains were also to be examined on the record. The matter was restored for recomputation after proper verification, and any disallowance under rule 8D(2)(iii) could not exceed the actual expenditure claimed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 31 Jul 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 06 Apr 2015 22:04:16 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=380918" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (7) TMI 1113 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169152</link>
      <description>Disallowance under section 14A read with rule 8D required fresh verification of the assessee&#039;s fund flow and balance-sheet materials before any common interest or administrative expenditure could be computed. Direct interest relatable to allowable income under section 57(iii) had first to be segregated, and interest linked to car loans, housing loans, interest-bearing advances, and taxable investments had to be identified separately. Investments that did not yield dividend or long-term capital gains were also to be examined on the record. The matter was restored for recomputation after proper verification, and any disallowance under rule 8D(2)(iii) could not exceed the actual expenditure claimed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 31 Jul 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169152</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>