<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Court rules disallowance under Sec 14A without exempt income not valid. Can&#039;t apply new rule retroactively. Prev year&#039;s disallowance rejected.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=78742</link>
    <description>The case concerns disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D without exempt income for A.Y. Issue of retrospective/prospective application of Section 14A explanation post Finance Act, 2022. CIT(A) upheld disallowance citing Finance Act, 2020. SC rulings state disallowance impermissible without exempt income. AO&#039;s presumptions on investment source are not legally tenable. CIT(A)&#039;s reliance on retrospective application of Section 14A explanation is illegal. Section 14A amendment not retroactive to A.Y. 2016-17. Tribunal rules against revenue, in favor of appellant, as AO&#039;s satisfaction for disallowance was based on future dividend income presumptions, lacking legal basis.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Sat, 22 Jun 2024 08:36:59 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 22 Jun 2024 08:36:59 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=757244" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Court rules disallowance under Sec 14A without exempt income not valid. Can&#039;t apply new rule retroactively. Prev year&#039;s disallowance rejected.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=78742</link>
      <description>The case concerns disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D without exempt income for A.Y. Issue of retrospective/prospective application of Section 14A explanation post Finance Act, 2022. CIT(A) upheld disallowance citing Finance Act, 2020. SC rulings state disallowance impermissible without exempt income. AO&#039;s presumptions on investment source are not legally tenable. CIT(A)&#039;s reliance on retrospective application of Section 14A explanation is illegal. Section 14A amendment not retroactive to A.Y. 2016-17. Tribunal rules against revenue, in favor of appellant, as AO&#039;s satisfaction for disallowance was based on future dividend income presumptions, lacking legal basis.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Sat, 22 Jun 2024 08:36:59 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=78742</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>