https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=295718 The High Court ruled in favor of the assessee, allowing both appeals and directing the order to be placed in the connected file. The Court emphasized the requirement for proof of actual expenditure incurred in earning dividend income to trigger Section 14A(1) of the Act. It highlighted the lack of a reasonable nexus between the disallowed expenditure and the dividend income received, as well as the absence of evidence proving diversion of borrowings to earn tax-free income. The principle of res judicata was discussed, emphasizing consistency and strong reasons for deviating from a settled position. en-us Tue, 09 Jan 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 17 Jun 2021 11:06:21 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=295718 The High Court ruled in favor of the assessee, allowing both appeals and directing the order to be placed in the connected file. The Court emphasized the requirement for proof of actual expenditure incurred in earning dividend income to trigger Section 14A(1) of the Act. It highlighted the lack of a reasonable nexus between the disallowed expenditure and the dividend income received, as well as the absence of evidence proving diversion of borrowings to earn tax-free income. The principle of res judicata was discussed, emphasizing consistency and strong reasons for deviating from a settled position. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 09 Jan 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=295718