https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=312920 ITAT Delhi allowed the assessee's appeal regarding addition under section 14A read with rule 8D. The tribunal held that the AO failed to record satisfaction after verifying books of account regarding correctness of disallowance claimed by assessee before invoking rule 8D provisions as mandated under section 14A(2). Following Delhi HC precedent in Taikisha Engineering case, the tribunal reversed CIT(A)'s finding and directed AO to delete the disallowance. Regarding MAT addition, the tribunal upheld CIT(A)'s deletion based on section 115JB interpretation, supporting the decision with Vireet Investment precedent. en-us Tue, 31 Oct 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 15 Mar 2024 06:53:37 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=312920 ITAT Delhi allowed the assessee's appeal regarding addition under section 14A read with rule 8D. The tribunal held that the AO failed to record satisfaction after verifying books of account regarding correctness of disallowance claimed by assessee before invoking rule 8D provisions as mandated under section 14A(2). Following Delhi HC precedent in Taikisha Engineering case, the tribunal reversed CIT(A)'s finding and directed AO to delete the disallowance. Regarding MAT addition, the tribunal upheld CIT(A)'s deletion based on section 115JB interpretation, supporting the decision with Vireet Investment precedent. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 31 Oct 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=312920