On Revenue’s appeal, the Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) rightly relied on the decision of Taikisha  ?and negated the stand taken by the AO. The Tribunal observed that, the interest expenditure was on account of non-fulfillment of delivering a constructed area within the timelines stipulated in the agreement and therefore, assessee paid the requisite expenditure. Therefore, the interest expense was not related to the investment made in unquoted shares of its subsidiary company. Further, the Tribunal held that the investments made in subsidiary companies were not meant to generate dividend income but were strategic in nature. Additionally, the Tribunal observed that there was no exempt income credited in the P&L account and the shareholder’s funds were in excess of the amount invested and thus logically, the investments had been made out of self-generated funds and not interest bearing funds. Therefore, the disallowance u/s. 14A was rightly deleted. (ITA No. 5958/Del/2015) (AY. 2011-12)