Tribunal held that the assesseee had contended that investment was made in earlier years and not from the borrowed money hence no disallowance of interest could be made. The matter was remanded to the AO for verification. (AY. 2013-14)
S. Annamalai (BHUF) v. ITO (2020)82 ITR 68 (Chennai)(Trib.)
S. 14A : Disallowance of expenditure-Exempt income-Investment was made in earlier year-No interest expenditure was claimed-Matter remanded to the AO for fresh consideration. [R. 8D]