https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=417462 Amortization of lease premium for leasehold rights in land was treated as business expenditure issue, with the text noting that the claim had previously been rejected on identical facts and that the payment was not accepted as revenue in nature or comparable to rent. It also explains the working of section 14A read with Rule 8D: only expenditure with a demonstrable nexus to exempt income can enter the disallowance, investments that did not yield exempt income during the year are excluded from the computation, and interest disallowance requires a clear linkage to borrowed funds used for exempt investments rather than a mechanical application of Rule 8D. en-us Wed, 29 Dec 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 22 Jan 2022 11:56:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=417462 Amortization of lease premium for leasehold rights in land was treated as business expenditure issue, with the text noting that the claim had previously been rejected on identical facts and that the payment was not accepted as revenue in nature or comparable to rent. It also explains the working of section 14A read with Rule 8D: only expenditure with a demonstrable nexus to exempt income can enter the disallowance, investments that did not yield exempt income during the year are excluded from the computation, and interest disallowance requires a clear linkage to borrowed funds used for exempt investments rather than a mechanical application of Rule 8D. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 29 Dec 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=417462