https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465342 Disallowance under s.14A r.w. r.8D was held to be confined to investments that actually yielded exempt income, because the rule targets expenditure "in relation to" exempt income and cannot be applied to investments that did not generate exempt income; the AO was directed to recompute the disallowance under r.8D(2)(ii) (interest) and r.8D(2)(iii) (administrative expenses) accordingly after examining the taxpayer's revised working. Separately, disallowance of interest claimed under s.37(1) was impermissible where the same interest had already been factored into the disallowance under r.8D(2)(ii); the duplicated disallowance was deleted. en-us Wed, 21 Aug 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 17 Dec 2025 21:52:28 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465342 Disallowance under s.14A r.w. r.8D was held to be confined to investments that actually yielded exempt income, because the rule targets expenditure "in relation to" exempt income and cannot be applied to investments that did not generate exempt income; the AO was directed to recompute the disallowance under r.8D(2)(ii) (interest) and r.8D(2)(iii) (administrative expenses) accordingly after examining the taxpayer's revised working. Separately, disallowance of interest claimed under s.37(1) was impermissible where the same interest had already been factored into the disallowance under r.8D(2)(ii); the duplicated disallowance was deleted. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 21 Aug 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465342