https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=331353 The Appellate Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, holding that the disallowance under section 14A of the Income Tax Act was not warranted. The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer failed to prove that borrowed funds were used for investments, leading to the conclusion that no disallowance could be justified for interest expenditure. The Tribunal emphasized the need for a direct connection between expenditure and income not forming part of total income, ultimately providing partial relief to the assessee by modifying the disallowance amount under the head of average investment to 2% of the dividend income. en-us Tue, 16 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 20 Aug 2016 08:39:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=331353 The Appellate Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, holding that the disallowance under section 14A of the Income Tax Act was not warranted. The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer failed to prove that borrowed funds were used for investments, leading to the conclusion that no disallowance could be justified for interest expenditure. The Tribunal emphasized the need for a direct connection between expenditure and income not forming part of total income, ultimately providing partial relief to the assessee by modifying the disallowance amount under the head of average investment to 2% of the dividend income. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 16 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=331353