https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=787809 Disallowance under section 14A was examined in light of Rule 8D, the Assessing Officer's duty to record dissatisfaction with the assessee's accounts, and the effect of available interest-free funds exceeding investments. The Supreme Court noted that the assessee had made a suo motu disallowance, but the Assessing Officer did not first demonstrate examination of the accounts or record a reasoned dissatisfaction before applying Rule 8D. Finding no basis to interfere with the concurrent orders deleting the disallowance, the Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition on merits and granted condonation of the 710-day delay. en-us Tue, 10 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 11 Mar 2026 17:09:53 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=787809 Disallowance under section 14A was examined in light of Rule 8D, the Assessing Officer's duty to record dissatisfaction with the assessee's accounts, and the effect of available interest-free funds exceeding investments. The Supreme Court noted that the assessee had made a suo motu disallowance, but the Assessing Officer did not first demonstrate examination of the accounts or record a reasoned dissatisfaction before applying Rule 8D. Finding no basis to interfere with the concurrent orders deleting the disallowance, the Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition on merits and granted condonation of the 710-day delay. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 10 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=787809