https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182317 The HC upheld the ITAT's deletion of disallowances under sections 36(i)(iii) and 14A, and regarding investments in immovable property. It was found that the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds covering interest-free advances, negating disallowance under section 36(i)(iii). The court agreed that investments in shops and pent-houses were business-related despite some properties being rented out, rejecting disallowance on that basis. Under section 14A, the AO failed to record reasons or provide evidence that expenditure related to exempt income was incurred, and the burden to prove use of interest-bearing funds for tax-free income lay with the Revenue. The findings by the CIT(A) and ITAT were upheld as reasonable, resulting in all disallowances being ruled in favor of the assessee. en-us Tue, 04 Aug 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 25 Jul 2025 12:57:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182317 The HC upheld the ITAT's deletion of disallowances under sections 36(i)(iii) and 14A, and regarding investments in immovable property. It was found that the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds covering interest-free advances, negating disallowance under section 36(i)(iii). The court agreed that investments in shops and pent-houses were business-related despite some properties being rented out, rejecting disallowance on that basis. Under section 14A, the AO failed to record reasons or provide evidence that expenditure related to exempt income was incurred, and the burden to prove use of interest-bearing funds for tax-free income lay with the Revenue. The findings by the CIT(A) and ITAT were upheld as reasonable, resulting in all disallowances being ruled in favor of the assessee. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 04 Aug 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182317