<?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>2018 (5) TMI 505 - ITAT KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=359941</link>
    <description>The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue&#039;s appeal, upholding the CIT(A)&#039;s decision to reverse the disallowance of proportionate interest and administrative expenditure under section 14A r.w.r.8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. The Tribunal ruled that only net interest should be considered for disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(ii) and that administrative expenditure must be claimed as a deduction to be eligible for disallowance. The Revenue&#039;s arguments were deemed unjustified, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 02 May 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 07 May 2018 08:25:25 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=519391" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (5) TMI 505 - ITAT KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=359941</link>
      <description>The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue&#039;s appeal, upholding the CIT(A)&#039;s decision to reverse the disallowance of proportionate interest and administrative expenditure under section 14A r.w.r.8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. The Tribunal ruled that only net interest should be considered for disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(ii) and that administrative expenditure must be claimed as a deduction to be eligible for disallowance. The Revenue&#039;s arguments were deemed unjustified, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 02 May 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=359941</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>