https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=264687 The Tribunal remitted the issue of disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) back to the Assessing Officer for further consideration. However, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decisions on disallowances under Rule 8D(2) and Section 14A read with Rule 8D, based on the rationale that investments in subsidiary companies were for business expediency rather than earning capital gains or dividends. The Tribunal's judgment clarified the treatment of these disallowances under the relevant legal provisions and precedents. en-us Wed, 16 Sep 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 18 Dec 2015 16:25:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=264687 The Tribunal remitted the issue of disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) back to the Assessing Officer for further consideration. However, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decisions on disallowances under Rule 8D(2) and Section 14A read with Rule 8D, based on the rationale that investments in subsidiary companies were for business expediency rather than earning capital gains or dividends. The Tribunal's judgment clarified the treatment of these disallowances under the relevant legal provisions and precedents. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 16 Sep 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=264687