https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=413521 The court ruled in favor of the appellant on the first three substantial questions of law concerning Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, finding that the Assessing Officer did not record the required satisfaction for invoking Rule 8D. Additionally, the court determined that disallowance under Section 14A was not applicable due to the absence of exempt income from the partnership firm, which incurred a loss. The fourth issue was remitted to the Assessing Officer for further examination to determine whether borrowed funds were used for advances to the partnership firm, setting aside the lower authorities' decisions. en-us Mon, 16 Aug 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 28 Oct 2023 10:11:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=413521 The court ruled in favor of the appellant on the first three substantial questions of law concerning Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, finding that the Assessing Officer did not record the required satisfaction for invoking Rule 8D. Additionally, the court determined that disallowance under Section 14A was not applicable due to the absence of exempt income from the partnership firm, which incurred a loss. The fourth issue was remitted to the Assessing Officer for further examination to determine whether borrowed funds were used for advances to the partnership firm, setting aside the lower authorities' decisions. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 16 Aug 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=413521