https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=375905 A deduction claim arising from NSEL transactions could not be finally accepted without proof of actual delivery and a verified factual basis to determine whether the loss was a delivery-based trading loss, allowable bad debt, or a speculative transaction under section 43(5). The matter was therefore remanded for fresh examination of the conditions under sections 36(1)(vii) and 36(2). On section 14A read with Rule 8D, the disallowance was deleted because the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds, the investments were not shown to have a borrowed-fund nexus, and the Assessing Officer had not recorded the required dissatisfaction before applying Rule 8D. en-us Mon, 07 Jan 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 18 Sep 2025 18:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=375905 A deduction claim arising from NSEL transactions could not be finally accepted without proof of actual delivery and a verified factual basis to determine whether the loss was a delivery-based trading loss, allowable bad debt, or a speculative transaction under section 43(5). The matter was therefore remanded for fresh examination of the conditions under sections 36(1)(vii) and 36(2). On section 14A read with Rule 8D, the disallowance was deleted because the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds, the investments were not shown to have a borrowed-fund nexus, and the Assessing Officer had not recorded the required dissatisfaction before applying Rule 8D. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 07 Jan 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=375905