https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=424090 The Assessing Officer disallowed Rs.11,59,010 under Sec. 14A read with Rule 8D(2)(iii) due to lack of expenditure allocation for exempt dividend income. The CIT(Appeals) upheld this disallowance, but the ITAT disagreed, emphasizing the necessity for the Assessing Officer to record dissatisfaction before disallowing expenses. The absence of a clear nexus between exempt income and expenditure, coupled with the failure to meet procedural requirements, led to the vacating of the disallowance. The case underscores the significance of proper jurisdiction and adherence to legal precedents in making disallowances under Sec. 14A. en-us Thu, 31 Mar 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 22 Jun 2022 08:33:06 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=424090 The Assessing Officer disallowed Rs.11,59,010 under Sec. 14A read with Rule 8D(2)(iii) due to lack of expenditure allocation for exempt dividend income. The CIT(Appeals) upheld this disallowance, but the ITAT disagreed, emphasizing the necessity for the Assessing Officer to record dissatisfaction before disallowing expenses. The absence of a clear nexus between exempt income and expenditure, coupled with the failure to meet procedural requirements, led to the vacating of the disallowance. The case underscores the significance of proper jurisdiction and adherence to legal precedents in making disallowances under Sec. 14A. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 31 Mar 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=424090