https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=754327 ITAT Mumbai partially allowed revenue's appeal regarding disallowance u/s 14A. Court upheld deletion of disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(ii) citing HDFC Bank precedent that where assessee's own funds exceed tax-free investments, no interest disallowance applies. However, court modified order regarding Rule 8D(2)(iii), directing AO to recompute disallowance considering only investments yielding exempt income during the year, following Vireet Investment decision. Court dismissed revenue's appeal on s.36(1)(iii) disallowance, holding that where assessee's own funds exceed investments and advances, no disallowance warranted per Reliance Utilities precedent. en-us Tue, 18 Jun 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 21 Jun 2024 08:17:43 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=754327 ITAT Mumbai partially allowed revenue's appeal regarding disallowance u/s 14A. Court upheld deletion of disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(ii) citing HDFC Bank precedent that where assessee's own funds exceed tax-free investments, no interest disallowance applies. However, court modified order regarding Rule 8D(2)(iii), directing AO to recompute disallowance considering only investments yielding exempt income during the year, following Vireet Investment decision. Court dismissed revenue's appeal on s.36(1)(iii) disallowance, holding that where assessee's own funds exceed investments and advances, no disallowance warranted per Reliance Utilities precedent. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 18 Jun 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=754327