https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=380391 The ITAT Kolkata allowed the appeal, ruling in favor of the appellant on both issues. The tribunal directed the deletion of the disallowance of 20% of miscellaneous expenses as the AO's action was deemed arbitrary and not supported by proper evidence. Additionally, the disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(ii) was also deleted as the appellant demonstrated investments were made from non-interest bearing own funds, justifying that no disallowance was warranted. The judgment highlighted the necessity of adhering to prescribed procedures and furnishing sufficient evidence for expense claims and disallowances under tax rules. en-us Wed, 15 May 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 18 May 2019 10:33:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=380391 The ITAT Kolkata allowed the appeal, ruling in favor of the appellant on both issues. The tribunal directed the deletion of the disallowance of 20% of miscellaneous expenses as the AO's action was deemed arbitrary and not supported by proper evidence. Additionally, the disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(ii) was also deleted as the appellant demonstrated investments were made from non-interest bearing own funds, justifying that no disallowance was warranted. The judgment highlighted the necessity of adhering to prescribed procedures and furnishing sufficient evidence for expense claims and disallowances under tax rules. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 15 May 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=380391