SHRIRAM CREDIT COMPANY LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 6(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1199/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Shriram Credit Company Income Tax, Corporate Circle 6(1) I/C, Limited, Shriram House, No. 4, Aayakar Bhavan, Wanaparthy Burkit Road, T. Nagar, Block, 7Th Floor, 121, M.G. Road, Chennai 600 042. Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Aagcs4497N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1307/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Shriram Credit Company Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Limited, Mookambika Complex, Income Tax, No. 4, Lady Desika Road, Corporate Circle 6(1), Mylapore, Chennai 600 004. Chennai 600 034. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) Department By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit Assessee By : Shri R.Sivaraman, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 30.03.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13.04.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By The Revenue As Well As Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 15, Chennai Dated 26.12.2017 Relevant To The Assessment

TDS in respect of those two parties. Hence, we find no reason to interfere with order passed by the ld. CIT(A) on this issue and thus, the ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed. 6. The last ground raised in the appeal of the Revenue in ground No. 5 to 5.2 relates to exclusion of disallowance under section 14A

DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 6(1) (I/C) , CHENNAI vs. SHRIRAM CREDIT COMPANY LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1199/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Shriram Credit Company Income Tax, Corporate Circle 6(1) I/C, Limited, Shriram House, No. 4, Aayakar Bhavan, Wanaparthy Burkit Road, T. Nagar, Block, 7Th Floor, 121, M.G. Road, Chennai 600 042. Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Aagcs4497N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1307/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Shriram Credit Company Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Limited, Mookambika Complex, Income Tax, No. 4, Lady Desika Road, Corporate Circle 6(1), Mylapore, Chennai 600 004. Chennai 600 034. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) Department By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit Assessee By : Shri R.Sivaraman, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 30.03.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13.04.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By The Revenue As Well As Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 15, Chennai Dated 26.12.2017 Relevant To The Assessment

TDS in respect of those two parties. Hence, we find no reason to interfere with order passed by the ld. CIT(A) on this issue and thus, the ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed. 6. The last ground raised in the appeal of the Revenue in ground No. 5 to 5.2 relates to exclusion of disallowance under section 14A

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon'Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1193, 1194, 1205, 1206 & 1207/Chny/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) Cognizant Technology Solutions Vs The Asst. Commissioner India Pvt. Ltd., Of Income Tax, No.5/535, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Central Circle 1(1), Old Mahabalipuram Road, Chennai. Chennai - 600 096. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Pan: Aaacd 3312M (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1262, 1263, 1264, 1265 & 1266/Chny/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) The Asst. Commissioner Of Vs Cognizant Technology Income Tax, Solutions India Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle 1(1), No.5/535, Okkiam Chennai. Thoraipakkam, Old Mahabalipuram Road, Chennai - 600 096. Pan: Aaacd 3312M (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) निधारिती की ओर से/Assessee By राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit & Ms. Anitha, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11.03.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 16.05.2025 - 2 -

TDS while paying the said amount. In the scrutiny assessment, AO noticed the above and observed that the said payments constitute royalty as contained in Explanation-2 read with Explanation-3 to section 9(1)(vi) of the Act. AO invoked the provisions of section 40(a)(i) of the Act. 26. During the first appellate proceedings, CIT (A) observed

COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1),, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1193, 1194, 1205, 1206 & 1207/Chny/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) Vs Cognizant Technology Solutions The Asst. Commissioner India Pvt. Ltd., Of Income Tax, No.5/535, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Central Circle 1(1), Old Mahabalipuram Road, Chennai. Chennai – 600 096. Pan : Aaacd 3312M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1262, 1263, 1264, 1265 & 1266/Chny/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) Vs The Asst. Commissioner Of Cognizant Technology Income Tax, Solutions India Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle 1(1), No.5/535, Okkiam Chennai. Thoraipakkam, Old Mahabalipuram Road, Chennai – 600 096. Pan : Aaacd 3312M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

14A of the Act read with Rule 8D shall be made where there is no exempt income earned during the year. 7. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. We note that it is now a settled principle that the disallowance u/s.14A of the Act shall not be made where there is no exempt income earned during

COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1),, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1193, 1194, 1205, 1206 & 1207/Chny/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) Vs Cognizant Technology Solutions The Asst. Commissioner India Pvt. Ltd., Of Income Tax, No.5/535, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Central Circle 1(1), Old Mahabalipuram Road, Chennai. Chennai – 600 096. Pan : Aaacd 3312M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1262, 1263, 1264, 1265 & 1266/Chny/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) Vs The Asst. Commissioner Of Cognizant Technology Income Tax, Solutions India Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle 1(1), No.5/535, Okkiam Chennai. Thoraipakkam, Old Mahabalipuram Road, Chennai – 600 096. Pan : Aaacd 3312M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

14A of the Act read with Rule 8D shall be made where there is no exempt income earned during the year. 7. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. We note that it is now a settled principle that the disallowance u/s.14A of the Act shall not be made where there is no exempt income earned during

HANSA VISION INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3443/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2014-15 M/S. Hansa Vision India P. Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 19, Wheatcroft Road, Vs. Income Tax, Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034. Corporate Circle 2(2), [Pan:Aabct3770E] Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri G. Johnson, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 06.04.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 05.05.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao,: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 6, Chennai, Dated 29.11.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The First Ground & Ground No. 12 Raised In The Appeal Are General In Nature & Requires No Adjudication.

14A of the Act while computing book profits under section 115JB of the Act is dismissed. 3. The next ground raised in the appeal of the assessee in ground No. 7 to 9 relates to confirmation of addition of ₹.10,85,501/- being the expenses incurred on building. The assessee has claimed an amount of ₹.10,85,501/- towards

E H BUILDING CONSULTANCY PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CORPORATE WARD 2(1),CHENNAI, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri V. Durga Raoआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.459/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 Eh Building Consultancy Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Flat No. 1C, First Floor, Gowri Chitra Corporate Ward 2(1), Garden Complex, 88/4, Arcot Road, Chennai. Vadapalani, Chennai 600 026. [Pan:Aabce8062E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri G. Tarun, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 13.07.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 19.07.2023 आदेश /O R D E R This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi Dated 15.02.2023 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Has Filed The Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2012-13 On 30.09.2012 With Returned Income Of ₹.Nil. The Return Of Income Was Processed Under Section 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] Dated 15.03.2013. Thereafter, The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Through Nd Notice Under 2

section 14A of the Act of ₹.39,61,902/-, disallowance of ROC fees of ₹.72,412/- and addition made towards TDS

SIVA INDUSTRIES AND HOLDINGS LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA No 1392/2016 for the

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

TDS credit of Rs 1,96,79,460 while computing the tax payable. 28. The earned AC has erred in not giving the MAT credit of Rs.26,35,58,884 while computing the tax payable. 29. The Learned AC has erred in wrongly adding an additional tax amount of Rs. 1,51,00,445 without any basis. Interest under section

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. SIVA VENTURES LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA No 1392/2016 for the

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

TDS credit of Rs 1,96,79,460 while computing the tax payable. 28. The earned AC has erred in not giving the MAT credit of Rs.26,35,58,884 while computing the tax payable. 29. The Learned AC has erred in wrongly adding an additional tax amount of Rs. 1,51,00,445 without any basis. Interest under section

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. SIVA VENTURES LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA No 1392/2016 for the

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

TDS credit of Rs 1,96,79,460 while computing the tax payable. 28. The earned AC has erred in not giving the MAT credit of Rs.26,35,58,884 while computing the tax payable. 29. The Learned AC has erred in wrongly adding an additional tax amount of Rs. 1,51,00,445 without any basis. Interest under section

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. SIVA VENTURES LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA No 1392/2016 for the

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

TDS credit of Rs 1,96,79,460 while computing the tax payable. 28. The earned AC has erred in not giving the MAT credit of Rs.26,35,58,884 while computing the tax payable. 29. The Learned AC has erred in wrongly adding an additional tax amount of Rs. 1,51,00,445 without any basis. Interest under section

EMPEE DISTILLERIES LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ADDL. CIT CORPORATE RANGE 2(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the order passed by the tribunal dated 9-1-2015 insofar as it pertains to the findings recorded against the assessee is hereby quashed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2334, 2335 & 2336/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11 M/S. Empee Distilleries Ltd., The Assistant Commissioner Of Empee Tower, No. 59, Harris Road, Vs. Income Tax, Company Range Ii, Pudupet, Chennai 600 002. Chennai Presently Corporate [Pan:Aaace1687N] Circle 2(1), Chennai 600 034. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Raveendra Benakatti, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 05.07.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.08.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 9, Dated 28.07.2017, Relevant To The Assessment Years 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11. Since The Facts Are Identical & Common Issues Have Been Raised, All The Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Brevity. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Common Grounds: 1. The Common Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 9, Chennai Dated 28.07.2017 In I.T.A.No.20/2010-11/Cit(A)-9 For The Above

14A of the Act r/w Rule 8D of Income Tax Rules, 1962 without assigning proper reasons and justification and further ought to have appreciated that the said Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules 1962 was brought into this statute only at the fag end of the assessment year under consideration, thereby vitiating his decision in that regard

EMPEE DISTILLERIES LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ADDL. CIT CORPORATE RANGE 2(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the order passed by the tribunal dated 9-1-2015 insofar as it pertains to the findings recorded against the assessee is hereby quashed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2334, 2335 & 2336/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11 M/S. Empee Distilleries Ltd., The Assistant Commissioner Of Empee Tower, No. 59, Harris Road, Vs. Income Tax, Company Range Ii, Pudupet, Chennai 600 002. Chennai Presently Corporate [Pan:Aaace1687N] Circle 2(1), Chennai 600 034. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Raveendra Benakatti, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 05.07.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.08.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 9, Dated 28.07.2017, Relevant To The Assessment Years 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11. Since The Facts Are Identical & Common Issues Have Been Raised, All The Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Brevity. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Common Grounds: 1. The Common Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 9, Chennai Dated 28.07.2017 In I.T.A.No.20/2010-11/Cit(A)-9 For The Above

14A of the Act r/w Rule 8D of Income Tax Rules, 1962 without assigning proper reasons and justification and further ought to have appreciated that the said Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules 1962 was brought into this statute only at the fag end of the assessment year under consideration, thereby vitiating his decision in that regard

EMPEE DISTILLERIES LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ADDL. CIT CORPORATE RANGE 2(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the order passed by the tribunal dated 9-1-2015 insofar as it pertains to the findings recorded against the assessee is hereby quashed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2334, 2335 & 2336/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11 M/S. Empee Distilleries Ltd., The Assistant Commissioner Of Empee Tower, No. 59, Harris Road, Vs. Income Tax, Company Range Ii, Pudupet, Chennai 600 002. Chennai Presently Corporate [Pan:Aaace1687N] Circle 2(1), Chennai 600 034. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Raveendra Benakatti, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 05.07.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.08.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 9, Dated 28.07.2017, Relevant To The Assessment Years 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11. Since The Facts Are Identical & Common Issues Have Been Raised, All The Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Brevity. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Common Grounds: 1. The Common Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 9, Chennai Dated 28.07.2017 In I.T.A.No.20/2010-11/Cit(A)-9 For The Above

14A of the Act r/w Rule 8D of Income Tax Rules, 1962 without assigning proper reasons and justification and further ought to have appreciated that the said Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules 1962 was brought into this statute only at the fag end of the assessment year under consideration, thereby vitiating his decision in that regard

SHRIRAM FINANCE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE 3(1), CHENNAI, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.173/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21 Shriram Finance Limited Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of [Formerly Known As Shriram Transport Income Tax, Finance Company Limited), Corporate Circle 3(1), Sri Towers, Plot No. 14A, South Phase, Chennai. Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai 600 017. [Pan: Aaacs7018R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri R. Sivaraman, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri R.V. Aroon Prasad, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 25.07.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09.08.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.11.2023 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. Ground No. 1 Is General In Nature & Requires No Adjudication.

14A of the Act. Therefore, the disallowance computed by the Assessing Officer under Rule 8D(2)(iii) and as confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) is not justified. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed. 10. Ground Nos. 13 to 20 raised by the assessee in challenging the action of the ld. CIT(A) for non-adjudication

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. SHRIRAM PROPERTIES PVT LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri A.Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

TDS. On query it was explained by the Ld. Assessee’s representative that the aforesaid amount was paid to M/s. Mayor Brown LLB towards professional fees for services rendered outside India with respect to documentation. It was further clarified that M/s. Mayor Brown LLB did not have any permanent establishment in India and hence the income did not accrue

BGR ENERGY SYSTEMS LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee and Revenue are partly

Bench: Shri Abraham P.George & Shri George Mathan

section 14A and is only to the extent of disallowing expenditure "incurred by the assessee in relation to the tax exempt income". This proportion or portion of the tax exempt income surely cannot swallow the entire amount as has happened in this case’’. Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court, also considered an almost similar issue in the case of Regindton (India

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. BGR ENERGY SYSTEM LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee and Revenue are partly

Bench: Shri Abraham P.George & Shri George Mathan

section 14A and is only to the extent of disallowing expenditure "incurred by the assessee in relation to the tax exempt income". This proportion or portion of the tax exempt income surely cannot swallow the entire amount as has happened in this case’’. Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court, also considered an almost similar issue in the case of Regindton (India