https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=338744 Section 14A disallowance was considered inapplicable where no actual expenditure was shown to have been incurred for exempt dividend income and the assessee's own funds exceeded the investments, so the corresponding section 115JB adjustment also could not survive. The write-off of sundry balances and an insurance claim was treated as allowable on the facts, with the sundry balances linked to a slump sale and the service tax-related amount treated as a business loss. By contrast, bogus land development expenditure was sustained as unexplained expenditure because the record showed an accommodation entry arranged to generate cash. Interest and penalty grounds were consequential and not separately adjudicated. en-us Wed, 08 Feb 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 15 Dec 2017 14:18:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=338744 Section 14A disallowance was considered inapplicable where no actual expenditure was shown to have been incurred for exempt dividend income and the assessee's own funds exceeded the investments, so the corresponding section 115JB adjustment also could not survive. The write-off of sundry balances and an insurance claim was treated as allowable on the facts, with the sundry balances linked to a slump sale and the service tax-related amount treated as a business loss. By contrast, bogus land development expenditure was sustained as unexplained expenditure because the record showed an accommodation entry arranged to generate cash. Interest and penalty grounds were consequential and not separately adjudicated. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 08 Feb 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=338744