https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=415140 The ITAT held that the Assessing Officer (A.O) did not validly assume jurisdiction to disallow Rs. 1,07,16,643/- under Section 14A read with Rule 8D as he failed to record dissatisfaction with the assessee's claim in a specific manner. The disallowance lacked a clear nexus between expenditure and exempt income, based on general observations. Consequently, the ITAT allowed the assessee's appeal, setting aside the CIT(A)'s order and vacating the disallowance. en-us Fri, 08 Oct 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 26 Nov 2021 12:43:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=415140 The ITAT held that the Assessing Officer (A.O) did not validly assume jurisdiction to disallow Rs. 1,07,16,643/- under Section 14A read with Rule 8D as he failed to record dissatisfaction with the assessee's claim in a specific manner. The disallowance lacked a clear nexus between expenditure and exempt income, based on general observations. Consequently, the ITAT allowed the assessee's appeal, setting aside the CIT(A)'s order and vacating the disallowance. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 08 Oct 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=415140