https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=752438 The ITAT Mumbai ruled in favor of the assessee regarding disallowance under Section 14A. The tribunal held that the AO failed to record satisfaction as mandated under Section 14A(2) before applying Rule 8D, despite the assessee making suo moto disallowance of administrative costs and demat charges. The CIT(A) was incorrect in holding that the AO had recorded proper satisfaction. Without recording satisfaction about the correctness of the assessee's claim after examining accounts, the AO lacked authority to compute disallowance. Regarding Section 234D interest, the tribunal directed the AO to verify applicability and delete demand if not chargeable. en-us Wed, 08 May 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 10 May 2024 06:58:19 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=752438 The ITAT Mumbai ruled in favor of the assessee regarding disallowance under Section 14A. The tribunal held that the AO failed to record satisfaction as mandated under Section 14A(2) before applying Rule 8D, despite the assessee making suo moto disallowance of administrative costs and demat charges. The CIT(A) was incorrect in holding that the AO had recorded proper satisfaction. Without recording satisfaction about the correctness of the assessee's claim after examining accounts, the AO lacked authority to compute disallowance. Regarding Section 234D interest, the tribunal directed the AO to verify applicability and delete demand if not chargeable. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 08 May 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=752438