https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=754129 ITAT Ahmedabad allowed the appeal on two grounds. First, regarding disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D, the tribunal held that since the assessee had interest-free funds exceeding investments generating exempt income and the AO failed to record dissatisfaction under section 14A(2) before invoking Rule 8D, the disallowance was unsustainable. Second, concerning education cess deduction under section 37, the tribunal directed the AO to dispose of the assessee's Form 69 application for withdrawal of claim following retrospective amendment to section 40(a)(ii) by Finance Act 2022, noting the application was filed within prescribed period and format. en-us Fri, 14 Jun 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 18 Jun 2024 08:29:55 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=754129 ITAT Ahmedabad allowed the appeal on two grounds. First, regarding disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D, the tribunal held that since the assessee had interest-free funds exceeding investments generating exempt income and the AO failed to record dissatisfaction under section 14A(2) before invoking Rule 8D, the disallowance was unsustainable. Second, concerning education cess deduction under section 37, the tribunal directed the AO to dispose of the assessee's Form 69 application for withdrawal of claim following retrospective amendment to section 40(a)(ii) by Finance Act 2022, noting the application was filed within prescribed period and format. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 14 Jun 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=754129