https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=456361 ITAT Bangalore upheld CIT(A)'s decision on interest disallowance but remitted quantification aspect back to AO. The assessee had not made voluntary disallowance under section 14A and was uncertain about expenditure for tax-free investments. ITAT ruled that Rule 8D(2) application was proper but required fresh calculation after verifying assessee's bifurcation of interest expenditure. Regarding interest addition on loans and advances, ITAT dismissed revenue's appeal, finding assessee had sufficient own funds covering advances and noting no similar disallowances in previous years. en-us Thu, 28 Aug 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 19 Jul 2024 20:04:34 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=456361 ITAT Bangalore upheld CIT(A)'s decision on interest disallowance but remitted quantification aspect back to AO. The assessee had not made voluntary disallowance under section 14A and was uncertain about expenditure for tax-free investments. ITAT ruled that Rule 8D(2) application was proper but required fresh calculation after verifying assessee's bifurcation of interest expenditure. Regarding interest addition on loans and advances, ITAT dismissed revenue's appeal, finding assessee had sufficient own funds covering advances and noting no similar disallowances in previous years. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 28 Aug 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=456361