https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=755124 The ITAT Mumbai held that the AO correctly invoked section 14A r.w. rule 8D for disallowing expenditure attributable to exempt income from partnership firm profits under section 10(2A). Following the SC decision in Maxopp Investment Ltd., disallowance applies regardless of investment purpose. The CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance, favoring revenue on this ground. However, regarding MAT adjustment under section 115JB, the tribunal upheld CIT(A)'s decision that section 14A disallowance need not be adjusted in book profit for MAT liability, following special bench decisions in Vireet and Radha Madhav cases. en-us Thu, 04 Jul 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 05 Jul 2024 14:44:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=755124 The ITAT Mumbai held that the AO correctly invoked section 14A r.w. rule 8D for disallowing expenditure attributable to exempt income from partnership firm profits under section 10(2A). Following the SC decision in Maxopp Investment Ltd., disallowance applies regardless of investment purpose. The CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance, favoring revenue on this ground. However, regarding MAT adjustment under section 115JB, the tribunal upheld CIT(A)'s decision that section 14A disallowance need not be adjusted in book profit for MAT liability, following special bench decisions in Vireet and Radha Madhav cases. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 04 Jul 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=755124