https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=446523 ITAT Bangalore ruled on two issues: First, regarding disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D, the tribunal found that disallowance should only apply to investments yielding exempt income, not entire investment portfolio. The matter was remitted to AO for fresh computation following Delhi HC precedent in Cargo Motors case. Second, concerning interest disallowance under Section 36(1)(iii), the tribunal held that since the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds and borrowed funds were not utilized for land purchase, the disallowance was unwarranted and deleted the addition. en-us Tue, 29 Aug 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 05 Dec 2023 10:44:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=446523 ITAT Bangalore ruled on two issues: First, regarding disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D, the tribunal found that disallowance should only apply to investments yielding exempt income, not entire investment portfolio. The matter was remitted to AO for fresh computation following Delhi HC precedent in Cargo Motors case. Second, concerning interest disallowance under Section 36(1)(iii), the tribunal held that since the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds and borrowed funds were not utilized for land purchase, the disallowance was unwarranted and deleted the addition. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 29 Aug 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=446523