THE ACIT, THIRUVALLA vs. M/S.MUTHOOT PROPERTIES & INVESTMENTS, KOZHENCHERRY

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

section 57 of the I.T. Act, all the expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of making or earning interest income is deductible. 5. Conclusion: 5.1. In view of the facts as well as the legal principles discussed in para 4 above, the disallowance

DCIT, THIRUVALLA vs. MAR GREGORIOUS MEMORIAL MUTHOOT MEDICAL CENTRE, KOZHENCHERRY

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

section 57 of the I.T. Act, all the expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of making or earning interest income is deductible. 5. Conclusion: 5.1. In view of the facts as well as the legal principles discussed in para 4 above, the disallowance

DCIT, THIRUVALLA vs. MUTHOOT PROPERTIES & INVESTMENTS,, KOZHENCHERRY

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

section 57 of the I.T. Act, all the expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of making or earning interest income is deductible. 5. Conclusion: 5.1. In view of the facts as well as the legal principles discussed in para 4 above, the disallowance

DCIT, THIRUVALLA vs. MAR GREGORIOUS MEMORIAL MUTHOOT MEDICAL CENTRE, KOZHENCHERRY

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

section 57 of the I.T. Act, all the expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of making or earning interest income is deductible. 5. Conclusion: 5.1. In view of the facts as well as the legal principles discussed in para 4 above, the disallowance

THE ACIT, THIRUVALLA vs. M/S.MUTHOOT PROPERTIES & INVESTMENTS, KOZHENCHERRY

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

section 57 of the I.T. Act, all the expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of making or earning interest income is deductible. 5. Conclusion: 5.1. In view of the facts as well as the legal principles discussed in para 4 above, the disallowance

M/S.POPULAR FINANCE,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1, THIRUVALLA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

section 57 of the I.T. Act, all the expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of making or earning interest income is deductible. 5. Conclusion: 5.1. In view of the facts as well as the legal principles discussed in para 4 above, the disallowance

M/S POPULAR FINANCE COMPANY,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. THE ACIT,CIR-1,, THIRUVALLA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

section 57 of the I.T. Act, all the expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of making or earning interest income is deductible. 5. Conclusion: 5.1. In view of the facts as well as the legal principles discussed in para 4 above, the disallowance

M/S POPULAR FINANCE COMPANY,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. THE ACIT,CIR-1,, THIRUVALLA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

section 57 of the I.T. Act, all the expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of making or earning interest income is deductible. 5. Conclusion: 5.1. In view of the facts as well as the legal principles discussed in para 4 above, the disallowance

THE DCIT, KOCHI vs. M/S.SFO TECHNOLOGIES P. LTD, ERNAKULAM

In the result, this appeal filed by Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Ramit Kochar, Am

Section 14A read with Rule 8D(2)(iii) of 1962 Income Tax Rules. Reference is drawn to decision of Chennai-tribunaldecision in the case of Unifi Capital Private Limited v. ITO , reported in (2021) 129 taxmann.com 115(Chennai- trib.), wherein Chennai tribunal after considering the decision of Special Bench of Delhi-tribunal in the case of Vireet Investment Private DCIT

THE DCIT, KOCHI vs. M/S.SFO TECHNOLOGIES P. LTD, ALUVA

In the result, this appeal filed by Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Ramit Kochar, Am

Section 14A read with Rule 8D(2)(iii) of 1962 Income Tax Rules. Reference is drawn to decision of Chennai-tribunaldecision in the case of Unifi Capital Private Limited v. ITO , reported in (2021) 129 taxmann.com 115(Chennai- trib.), wherein Chennai tribunal after considering the decision of Special Bench of Delhi-tribunal in the case of Vireet Investment Private DCIT

THE DCIT, KOCHI vs. M/S.SFO TECHNOLOGIES P. LTD, ALUVA

In the result, this appeal filed by Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Ramit Kochar, Am

Section 14A read with Rule 8D(2)(iii) of 1962 Income Tax Rules. Reference is drawn to decision of Chennai-tribunaldecision in the case of Unifi Capital Private Limited v. ITO , reported in (2021) 129 taxmann.com 115(Chennai- trib.), wherein Chennai tribunal after considering the decision of Special Bench of Delhi-tribunal in the case of Vireet Investment Private DCIT

THE DCIT, KOCHI vs. M/S.SFO TECHNOLOGIES P. LTD, ALUVA

In the result, this appeal filed by Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Ramit Kochar, Am

Section 14A read with Rule 8D(2)(iii) of 1962 Income Tax Rules. Reference is drawn to decision of Chennai-tribunaldecision in the case of Unifi Capital Private Limited v. ITO , reported in (2021) 129 taxmann.com 115(Chennai- trib.), wherein Chennai tribunal after considering the decision of Special Bench of Delhi-tribunal in the case of Vireet Investment Private DCIT

THE DCIT, KOCHI vs. M/S.SFO TECHNOLOGIES P. LTD, ALUVA

In the result, this appeal filed by Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Ramit Kochar, Am

Section 14A read with Rule 8D(2)(iii) of 1962 Income Tax Rules. Reference is drawn to decision of Chennai-tribunaldecision in the case of Unifi Capital Private Limited v. ITO , reported in (2021) 129 taxmann.com 115(Chennai- trib.), wherein Chennai tribunal after considering the decision of Special Bench of Delhi-tribunal in the case of Vireet Investment Private DCIT

FEDERAL BANK LTD,KOCHI vs. ACIT CORP. CIRCLE-1(1 ) , KOCHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

section 14A should be limited to only interest liability and not overheads or administrative expenditure; which should be considered for disallowance under rule 8D from 2007-08 onwards.” The conclusion of the Hon’ble Court was therefore that prior to 2007-08 no overhead or administrative expenditure could be disallowed and only interest expenditure could be disallowed. For AY after

FEDERAL BANK LTD,KOCHI vs. ACIT CORP. CIRCLE-1(1 ) , KOCHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

section 14A should be limited to only interest liability and not overheads or administrative expenditure; which should be considered for disallowance under rule 8D from 2007-08 onwards.” The conclusion of the Hon’ble Court was therefore that prior to 2007-08 no overhead or administrative expenditure could be disallowed and only interest expenditure could be disallowed. For AY after

FEDERAL BANK LTD,KOCHI vs. ACIT CORP. CIRCLE-1(1 ) , KOCHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

section 14A should be limited to only interest liability and not overheads or administrative expenditure; which should be considered for disallowance under rule 8D from 2007-08 onwards.” The conclusion of the Hon’ble Court was therefore that prior to 2007-08 no overhead or administrative expenditure could be disallowed and only interest expenditure could be disallowed. For AY after

FEDERAL BANK LTD,KOCHI vs. ACIT CORP. CIRCLE-1(1 ) , KOCHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

section 14A should be limited to only interest liability and not overheads or administrative expenditure; which should be considered for disallowance under rule 8D from 2007-08 onwards.” The conclusion of the Hon’ble Court was therefore that prior to 2007-08 no overhead or administrative expenditure could be disallowed and only interest expenditure could be disallowed. For AY after

FEDERAL BANK LTD,KOCHI vs. ACIT CORP. CIRCLE-1(1 ) , KOCHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

section 14A should be limited to only interest liability and not overheads or administrative expenditure; which should be considered for disallowance under rule 8D from 2007-08 onwards.” The conclusion of the Hon’ble Court was therefore that prior to 2007-08 no overhead or administrative expenditure could be disallowed and only interest expenditure could be disallowed. For AY after