https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783041 The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of disallowance u/s 14A on interest relating to advances/investments, holding that in absence of any exempt dividend income, s.14A could not be invoked and such interest, if at all, was examinable only u/s 36(1)(iii). Consequently, no corresponding addition was permissible while computing book profit u/s 115JB, as the interest was not expenditure for earning exempt income. The Tribunal further held that the provision for periodic pavement overlay under the concession agreement constituted an ascertained liability, allowable as deduction, following earlier years' decisions. However, disallowance of employees' PF contribution deposited beyond statutory due dates was sustained, in line with settled SC law against the assessee. en-us Tue, 19 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 09 Dec 2025 08:41:58 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783041 The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of disallowance u/s 14A on interest relating to advances/investments, holding that in absence of any exempt dividend income, s.14A could not be invoked and such interest, if at all, was examinable only u/s 36(1)(iii). Consequently, no corresponding addition was permissible while computing book profit u/s 115JB, as the interest was not expenditure for earning exempt income. The Tribunal further held that the provision for periodic pavement overlay under the concession agreement constituted an ascertained liability, allowable as deduction, following earlier years' decisions. However, disallowance of employees' PF contribution deposited beyond statutory due dates was sustained, in line with settled SC law against the assessee. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 19 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783041