<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2016 (10) TMI 1039 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=191988</link>
    <description>The HC upheld the Tribunal&#039;s decision that Section 14A disallowance does not apply where no exempt income is earned or receivable during the relevant year. The court found that the AO failed to establish any actual exempt income included in total income. Investments in sister concerns were not treated as income, and thus no expenditure disallowance under Section 14A was warranted. No substantial question of law arose.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 13 Oct 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 23 Jul 2025 13:16:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=467820" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (10) TMI 1039 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=191988</link>
      <description>The HC upheld the Tribunal&#039;s decision that Section 14A disallowance does not apply where no exempt income is earned or receivable during the relevant year. The court found that the AO failed to establish any actual exempt income included in total income. Investments in sister concerns were not treated as income, and thus no expenditure disallowance under Section 14A was warranted. No substantial question of law arose.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 13 Oct 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=191988</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>