https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=258999 The Tribunal's deletion of the Revenue's disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D was upheld because it followed the applicable precedent on identical facts and was neither perverse nor legally erroneous. The Court held that, where expenditure attributed to exempt dividend income under section 10 had already been examined on the same factual matrix, no substantial question of law survived for consideration. The issue was therefore decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. en-us Tue, 07 Apr 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 27 Apr 2015 06:29:52 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=258999 The Tribunal's deletion of the Revenue's disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D was upheld because it followed the applicable precedent on identical facts and was neither perverse nor legally erroneous. The Court held that, where expenditure attributed to exempt dividend income under section 10 had already been examined on the same factual matrix, no substantial question of law survived for consideration. The issue was therefore decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 07 Apr 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=258999