https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=445749 The tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, finding that the Assessing Officer (AO) failed to adequately record dissatisfaction with the assessee's suo-moto disallowance under section 14A. The AO's additional disallowance of Rs. 41,17,215/- lacked cogent reasons and was deemed unsustainable. The tribunal noted the absence of a nexus between interest-bearing funds and investments and highlighted that section 14A read with Rule 8D was inapplicable due to the absence of tax-free income for the relevant year. Consequently, the tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal, emphasizing the requirement for a valid nexus and statutory compliance. en-us Tue, 31 Oct 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 17 Nov 2023 12:14:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=445749 The tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, finding that the Assessing Officer (AO) failed to adequately record dissatisfaction with the assessee's suo-moto disallowance under section 14A. The AO's additional disallowance of Rs. 41,17,215/- lacked cogent reasons and was deemed unsustainable. The tribunal noted the absence of a nexus between interest-bearing funds and investments and highlighted that section 14A read with Rule 8D was inapplicable due to the absence of tax-free income for the relevant year. Consequently, the tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal, emphasizing the requirement for a valid nexus and statutory compliance. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 31 Oct 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=445749