https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=776781 ITAT HYderabad - AT held that the AO had recorded required satisfaction under s.14A(2) and rightly rejected the assessee's contention that no such satisfaction existed. The Tribunal found that, absent details or apportionment of common administrative/establishment expenses, the AO correctly applied Rule 8D to compute disallowance and increased the suo motu claim from Rs.5,000 to Rs.10,67,172. The assessee's appeal was dismissed. en-us Wed, 13 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 19 Aug 2025 08:38:27 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=776781 ITAT HYderabad - AT held that the AO had recorded required satisfaction under s.14A(2) and rightly rejected the assessee's contention that no such satisfaction existed. The Tribunal found that, absent details or apportionment of common administrative/establishment expenses, the AO correctly applied Rule 8D to compute disallowance and increased the suo motu claim from Rs.5,000 to Rs.10,67,172. The assessee's appeal was dismissed. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 13 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=776781