https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=260489 Disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D was sustained because expenditure attributable to exempt dividend income was properly brought to tax, and the appellate approach calling for verification of the interest component was found unobjectionable. The addition relating to the unsecured loan was not finally deleted under section 68 because the assessee failed to prove the creditor's identity, creditworthiness and the genuineness of the transaction; a photocopy of confirmation, unanswered notice and banking entries were held insufficient. The matter on the loan was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration with directions for proper discharge of the burden of proof. en-us Wed, 25 Feb 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 12 Mar 2015 15:09:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=260489 Disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D was sustained because expenditure attributable to exempt dividend income was properly brought to tax, and the appellate approach calling for verification of the interest component was found unobjectionable. The addition relating to the unsecured loan was not finally deleted under section 68 because the assessee failed to prove the creditor's identity, creditworthiness and the genuineness of the transaction; a photocopy of confirmation, unanswered notice and banking entries were held insufficient. The matter on the loan was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration with directions for proper discharge of the burden of proof. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 25 Feb 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=260489