https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=178681 Rule 8D could not be applied retrospectively to assessment year 2006-07 for disallowance of expenditure attributable to exempt dividend income under section 14A; a reasonable disallowance of 1% of the exempt dividend income was sustained. A new claim that industrial promotion assistance was a capital receipt was admitted as an additional legal ground and restored for fresh verification. Compensation paid for infringement of landowners' rights in mining operations was treated as revenue expenditure because it did not create any enduring capital asset. Sale proceeds of depreciable assets had to be reduced from the block of assets, and depreciation computed on the reduced written down value. en-us Fri, 29 Jul 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 11 Apr 2023 17:57:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=178681 Rule 8D could not be applied retrospectively to assessment year 2006-07 for disallowance of expenditure attributable to exempt dividend income under section 14A; a reasonable disallowance of 1% of the exempt dividend income was sustained. A new claim that industrial promotion assistance was a capital receipt was admitted as an additional legal ground and restored for fresh verification. Compensation paid for infringement of landowners' rights in mining operations was treated as revenue expenditure because it did not create any enduring capital asset. Sale proceeds of depreciable assets had to be reduced from the block of assets, and depreciation computed on the reduced written down value. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 29 Jul 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=178681