https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=435727 The Court ruled in favor of the assessee regarding the interpretation of Section 36(1)(viia)(a) of the Income Tax Act, emphasizing the optional nature of the deduction under the first proviso. Additionally, the Court held that the procedure under Rule 8D for Section 14A was prospective, not retrospective, directing the Assessing Officer to recompute accordingly for the assessment year 2003-2004. The matter of disallowance under Section 14A without a finding on expenditure was remanded for fresh assessment, with the appeal partially allowed and one substantial question of law left unanswered. en-us Mon, 20 Mar 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 25 Mar 2023 19:12:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=435727 The Court ruled in favor of the assessee regarding the interpretation of Section 36(1)(viia)(a) of the Income Tax Act, emphasizing the optional nature of the deduction under the first proviso. Additionally, the Court held that the procedure under Rule 8D for Section 14A was prospective, not retrospective, directing the Assessing Officer to recompute accordingly for the assessment year 2003-2004. The matter of disallowance under Section 14A without a finding on expenditure was remanded for fresh assessment, with the appeal partially allowed and one substantial question of law left unanswered. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 20 Mar 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=435727