https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=176390 The Tribunal allowed the appeal by the assessee, ruling that the Assessing Officer failed to establish a direct nexus between the interest-bearing funds and the investment in mutual funds. Emphasizing the necessity of proving expenditure for earning exempted income, the Tribunal concluded that the disallowance under section 14A r.w. Rule 8D was unjustified as the mandate of section 14A(1) was not fulfilled. Consequently, the addition made by the AO was deleted, highlighting the importance of establishing a clear link between expenditure and exempt income for disallowance under section 14A. en-us Fri, 20 Sep 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 15 Nov 2016 10:43:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=176390 The Tribunal allowed the appeal by the assessee, ruling that the Assessing Officer failed to establish a direct nexus between the interest-bearing funds and the investment in mutual funds. Emphasizing the necessity of proving expenditure for earning exempted income, the Tribunal concluded that the disallowance under section 14A r.w. Rule 8D was unjustified as the mandate of section 14A(1) was not fulfilled. Consequently, the addition made by the AO was deleted, highlighting the importance of establishing a clear link between expenditure and exempt income for disallowance under section 14A. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 20 Sep 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=176390