<?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>2013 (11) TMI 1702 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194653</link>
    <description>The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue&#039;s appeal challenging the disallowance of administrative expenses under Section 14A read with Rule 8D for the assessment year 2008-09. The Tribunal held that Rule 8D should only be applied when there is a direct nexus between the expenditure and the exempt income, and the disallowance cannot exceed the actual claim of expenditure. Emphasizing the purpose of Section 14A, the Tribunal concluded that the disallowance should be limited to the amount actually claimed by the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 29 Nov 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 18 Sep 2017 12:06:41 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=489771" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (11) TMI 1702 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194653</link>
      <description>The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue&#039;s appeal challenging the disallowance of administrative expenses under Section 14A read with Rule 8D for the assessment year 2008-09. The Tribunal held that Rule 8D should only be applied when there is a direct nexus between the expenditure and the exempt income, and the disallowance cannot exceed the actual claim of expenditure. Emphasizing the purpose of Section 14A, the Tribunal concluded that the disallowance should be limited to the amount actually claimed by the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 29 Nov 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194653</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>