{"id":192,"date":"2008-10-10T12:04:45","date_gmt":"2008-10-10T12:04:45","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/?p=192"},"modified":"2008-10-10T12:04:45","modified_gmt":"2008-10-10T12:04:45","slug":"dcit-vs-ing-investment-itat-mumbai","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/dcit-vs-ing-investment-itat-mumbai\/","title":{"rendered":"DCIT vs. ING Investment (ITAT Mumbai)"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><a href=\"http:\/\/www.itatonline.org\/dlmonitor\/download.php?t=f&#038;i=108\"><img data-recalc-dims=\"1\" decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.itatonline.org\/images\/download.gif?w=605\" class=\"alignright\" border=\"0\" \/><\/a><\/p>\n<p>(1) For purposes of s. 14A, only the expenditure which is <strong>proved<\/strong> to have a nexus with the exempt income can be disallowed and not on an ad-hoc basis. <\/p>\n<p>(2) Sub-secs (2) and (3) of s. 14A inserted with effect from the AY 2007-2008 {and <a href=\"http:\/\/www.itatonline.org\/info\/?p=29\"><strong>Rule 8D<\/strong><\/a>} (which sanction proportionate disallowance) are prospective and do <strong>not<\/strong> apply to earlier assessment years. <\/p>\n<p>Note: The judgement of the Bombay ITAT in<strong> Citicorp Finance<\/strong> 108 ITD 457 was <strong>not<\/strong> followed. <\/p>\n<p>See Also: <a href=\"http:\/\/www.itatonline.org\/articles_new\/?p=13\"><strong>New Rule 8D \u2013 A lesson in tight rope walking?<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>For purposes of s. 14A, only the expenditure which is <strong>proved<\/strong> to have a nexus with the exempt income can be disallowed and not on an ad-hoc basis. <\/p>\n<div class=\"read-more\"><a href=\"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/dcit-vs-ing-investment-itat-mumbai\/\">Read more &#8250;<\/a><\/div>\n<p><!-- end of .read-more --><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[4,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-192","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-all-judgements","category-tribunal"],"acf":[],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/192","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=192"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/192\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=192"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=192"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=192"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}