rule 8D

In the present case As assessee had established nexus of interest expenses with its main activity of financing and there was not a single amount of interest bearing borrowings which could be related with investment which yielded tax-free dividend income, no disallowance under rule 8D(2)(ii) was called for. AO was directed to compute disal...

The Nainital Bank Ltd.  Vs Asstt. (ITAT Delhi) When the assessee furnished all the facts and figures including the earning of the tax free income and the expenditure which was accepted by the learned AO, it is not open for the AO to say that the income escaped assessment because assessee did not reveal the […]...

These four appeals are preferred by the revenue against the four separate orders passed by the Ld. CIT (Appeals) all dated 27th July, 2016 for A.Y. 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14 and since a common issue involved therein, the same have been heard together and are being disposed of by a single consolidated order....

As AO failed to arrive at satisfaction as to non-correctness of assessee’s claim as regards no expenditure against exempt income, invocation of rule 8D was in contravention of section 14A(2) and, therefore, disallowance was deleted....

Vision EL Tech & Services (P.) Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Bangalore) From the details filed it is observed that there are several instances of fresh investment as well as sale of investment in shares, evidencing frequent movement in the assessee’s investment portfolio and accordingly it cannot be accepted that no expenditure has been incurr...

No dis allowance u/s 14A is called for in a case where the shares are held as stock-in-trade as held in India Advantage Securities Ltd. (supra), CCI Ltd. v. JCIT (2012) 20 taxmann.com 196 (Karn.), PCIT v. State Bank of Patiala (2017) 78 taxmann.com 3 (P& H) and CIT v. G.K.K. Capital Markets (P.) Ltd. (2017) 78 taxmann.com 341 (Cal.)....

Where dis allowance was made by revenue under section 14A in respect of interest and administrative expenses, it was made clear that where assessee had its own surplus fund, then no question of any estimation of expenditure under rule 8D would arise. Thus, revenue was not justified in disallowing interest and administrative expenses, when...

At the outset, the learned Authorised Representative submitted that the issue raised by the revenue in second ground of appeal stands covered by the decision of the co-ordinate Bench in assessee’s own case in ITA No. 615/Mum/2014 (AY-2010-11) order dated 4-11-2015 ...

CIT Vs M/s Essar Telehoding Ltd. (Supreme Court of India) Applying the principles of statutory interpretation for interpreting retrospectivity of a fiscal statute and looking into the nature and purpose of sub­section (2) and sub­section (3) of Section 14A as well as purpose and intent of Rule 8D coupled with the explanatory notes in th...

M/s. Varsha Corporation Ltd. Vs. Dy. CIT (ITAT Mumbai) In the case under consideration, in the computation of income,the assessee had not claimed any exempt income. The expenditure claimed by it in the profit and loss account have not been shown to have been incurred for earning any exempt income during the year under consideration. [&hel...