ORDER SONIA GOKANI, J. These Tax Appeals preferred under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 {“Act” for short} challenges the common Order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad {“Tribunal” for short} rendered in ITA No. 2025/Ahd/2010 for A.Y 2001-02 and ITA No. 2026/Ahd/2010 for A.Y 2002-03, proposing the following substantial questions of law for our consideration : {A} “Whether the Hon’ble Tribunal erred in law and on facts in deleting the disallowance of interest expenses of Rs. 64,00,000/- under section 14A of the Act in respect of dividend income of Rs. 10,18,43,271/- which is exempt from tax in the hands of the assessee company ?” {B} “Whether the Hon’ble Tribunal erred in law and on facts in not appreciating that the assessee had taken interest bearing loans and had not discharged its onus to establish that interest bearing funds were not utilized for the purpose of investment and as such, since the assessee failed to furnish any quantification in respect of loan taken and investment made, the disallowance under section 14A was rightly made by the Assessing Officer ?” 2. Since the questions of law in both the Tax Appeals are being the same, the decision thereon is being delivered by this common order. 3. Although two questions are proposed, essentially, the issue concerns disallowance of interest expenditure under section 14A of the Act. The brief facts are as follows : 3.1 The assessee-respondent had received dividend income for the assessment years concerned to the tune of Rs. 10,18,43,271/- and Rs. 7,13,01,338/- respectively. It was noticed by the Assessing Officer that out of the funds raised by the assessee for the A.Y 2001-02 to the tune of Rs. 12893.23 lacs and Rs. 9,664.24 lacs for A.Y 2002-03, investment was made in UTI and other domestic companies. 3.2 The additions made by the Assessing Officer have been setaside by the Tribunal in the first round and the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for reconsideration. 3.3 In the second round, it was submitted on the part of the assessee that the investment made in UTI and the share of domestic companies made in the earlier years and no fresh investments were made in the year under consideration and the expenditure was made for earning dividend income. 3.3 In the second round, it was submitted on the part of the assessee that the investment made in UTI and the share of domestic companies made in the earlier years and no fresh investments were made in the year under consideration and the expenditure was made for earning dividend income. Moreover, it was further contended that there was no nexus between interest bearing borrowings and investment from which exempt income is earned. The company had huge share capital, reserves and surpluses which do not carry any interest. Therefore, it was urged that making any disallowance of any expenditure for earning exempt income under section 14A on presumption without there being any nexus was unwarranted. 4. The Assessing Officer disallowed, however, a sum of Rs. 64 lakhs under section 14A on the ground that as per the provisions of section 14A of the Act, the expenditure in terms of investment which pertained to the exempt income from interest bearing funds were not allowable. 5. When the matter was carried second time to the CIT [A], it held that the dividend income earned out of the investment were made in the earlier years and the investment were made as long back as in the A.Y 199596. No disallowance was made on the interest expenditure made in past and the Assessing Officer could not establish any nexus between interest bearing borrowing and investment from which exempt income is earned. It also held that the assessee-company had huge share capital and reserves and surpluses which do not carry any interest. 6. When this was challenged by the Revenue before the Tribunal, it held in favour of the assessee by finding that there was no fresh investments made by the assessee company during the year under consideration. It was also found that as per the balance sheet of the assessee, huge interest free funds in the form of capital, reserves and surpluses to the tune of Rs. 84,45,567/- lacs were available whereas, investments were made only to the extent of Rs. 22.707 lacs. 7. These concurrent findings arrived at by CIT [A] and Tribunal are challenged before us, raising aforementioned questions of law. 8. We have extensively heard Mr. K.M Parikh, learned counsel for the appellant-Revenue and learned advocate Shri Shah appearing for the Caveator. 9. 84,45,567/- lacs were available whereas, investments were made only to the extent of Rs. 22.707 lacs. 7. These concurrent findings arrived at by CIT [A] and Tribunal are challenged before us, raising aforementioned questions of law. 8. We have extensively heard Mr. K.M Parikh, learned counsel for the appellant-Revenue and learned advocate Shri Shah appearing for the Caveator. 9. We could notice from the material on the record that both the authorities have correctly approached the issue in as much as the record clearly had reflected from the balance sheet of the assessee-company that the interest free funds available was much larger to the extent of Rs. 84,45,567/= lakhs as compared to the investment which was only Rs. 22.707 lakhs. Both the authorities have also noted faultnessly that the dividend income which was earned out of the investments made in the earlier years and there was no investment made in the year under consideration. With the availability of the huge interest free funds in the form of share capital, reserves, etc., the Assessing Officer had not correctly applied the provisions of law to the issue. Such findings are also supported by the decision rendered by this Court in case of Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Gujarat State Fertilizers & Chemicals Limited, reported in [2013] 358 ITR 323 (Guj) where identical question of law had come up before this Court, wherein the issue has been answered in the following manner : “3.8 The moot question here is as to whether the CIT (Appeals) and the Tribunal were right in setting aside the order of Assessing Officer, whereby it disallowed the sum of Rs.1,14,43,040/-, applying the provisions of Section 14A of the Act on the ground that the assessee had used interest bearing borrowed funds for earning dividend during the assessment year under question. The dividend income earned was of Rs.1,14,43,040/- and the estimate of expenditure was assessed at the rate of 10% of the total income. Had the Revenue been successful in establishing that the assessee had incurred the expenses to earn the dividend income from the borrowed funds, the entire discussion of application of Section 14A of the Act could be understood. The dividend income earned was of Rs.1,14,43,040/- and the estimate of expenditure was assessed at the rate of 10% of the total income. Had the Revenue been successful in establishing that the assessee had incurred the expenses to earn the dividend income from the borrowed funds, the entire discussion of application of Section 14A of the Act could be understood. However, when both the CIT (Appeals) and the Tribunal have noted that the assessee had sufficient funds available with it, which was more than the amount it invested for earning the dividend income, both these authorities have correctly approached the issue by setting aside the order of disallowance under Section 14A of the Act in respect of interest expenditure. When the very basis for employing Section 14A of the Act on factual matrix is lacking, the disallowance to the extent of 10% of dividend income was not permissible. When it transpires from record that the assessee's own funds were at higher than the investment made by it and with nothing to indicate that the borrowed funds were utilized for the purpose of investment in shares and for earning dividends, the Tribunal committed no error in disallowing the sum of Rs.1,14,43,040/-.” 10. These Tax Appeals since raise no question of law any further, the same deserve no consideration. Tax Appeals are disposed of accordingly. No costs.