CIT v. Walfort Share & Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd.

326 ITR 1Supreme Court of India2010#112 most cited

What is CIT v. Walfort Share & Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd. authority for?

For attracting Section 14A disallowance, there must be a proximate cause relating the expenditure to actual tax-exempt income, and such disallowance is not automatic but requires positive material. Additionally, Section 94(7) on dividend stripping only ignores losses to the extent of dividend received for assessment years post-April 1, 2002, allowing the remaining loss.

543

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Walfort Share & Stock Brokers P. Ltd. · 326 ITR 1 · Section 14A disallowance · proximate cause exempt income · not automatic disallowance · actual exempt income · Section 94(7) · dividend stripping · loss ignored to extent of dividend · tax-exempt income expenditure

Also reported as

192 Taxmann 21141 DTR 233

Sections most often in play

Section 14ASection 143(3)Section 94(7)Section 10(35)Section 133ASection 148Section 148ASection 48

Issues it is cited on

section 14a(1)strategic investmentsection 14a(2)section 10(34)disallowance under section 14adisallowance u/s 14asection 14asection 80iamercantile system of accountingsection 115jbsection 115jrevenue expenditure

Judgments citing CIT v. Walfort Share & Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd.

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S SAHARA INDIA MASS COMMUNICATION LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed

ITA 2480/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Apr 2026AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT DR
Section 14ASection 40

…administrative expense for holding shares • The assessee's lack of specific documentation • The conservative nature of the 20% estimation • The disallowance is reasonable and justified. Established principle: In CIT v. Walfort Share & Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. (326 ITR 1 SC), the Supreme Court held that disallowance under Section 14A requires establishment of "proximate link" between expenditure and exempt income. Here, the link is clear: shareholding generates dividend, and shareholding necessitates administrative expense.” 14. On the other hand, ld. AR of the assessee submitted as under :- “During the year assess…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S SAHARA INDIA MASS COMMUNICATION LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed

ITA 2479/DEL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Apr 2026AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT DR
Section 14ASection 40

…administrative expense for holding shares • The assessee's lack of specific documentation • The conservative nature of the 20% estimation • The disallowance is reasonable and justified. Established principle: In CIT v. Walfort Share & Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. (326 ITR 1 SC), the Supreme Court held that disallowance under Section 14A requires establishment of "proximate link" between expenditure and exempt income. Here, the link is clear: shareholding generates dividend, and shareholding necessitates administrative expense.” 14. On the other hand, ld. AR of the assessee submitted as under :- “During the year assess…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S SAHARA INDIA MASS COMMUNICATION LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed

ITA 2478/DEL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Apr 2026AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT DR
Section 14ASection 40

…administrative expense for holding shares • The assessee's lack of specific documentation • The conservative nature of the 20% estimation • The disallowance is reasonable and justified. Established principle: In CIT v. Walfort Share & Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. (326 ITR 1 SC), the Supreme Court held that disallowance under Section 14A requires establishment of "proximate link" between expenditure and exempt income. Here, the link is clear: shareholding generates dividend, and shareholding necessitates administrative expense.” 14. On the other hand, ld. AR of the assessee submitted as under :- “During the year assess…

PUNITA KALPESH PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-5(2)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2054/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

Section 10(34)Section 10(35)Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 144BSection 54FSection 94(7)

…ing loss set-off would still enable avoidance, undermining the revenue's interest. The provision's use of "dividend or income" encompasses all amounts received, as held in analogous contexts by courts (e.g.. CIT v. Walfort Share & Stock Brokers P. Ltd. [2010] 326 ITR 1 (SC), where the Supreme Court upheld the anti-avoidance intent of section 94(7). emphasizing that losses are to be ignored to the extent of dividends, without limiting to exemption status). No judicial precedent directly restricts section 94(7) to exempt dividends post-introduction of section 115BBDA. On the contrary, the broad wording and purpose…

RAMESH PURSHOTTAM MODI ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER CIRCLE 22(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6577/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarramesh Purshottam Ito Circle 22(1) Modi Income Tax 303, Modi House, Linking Vs. Department, Road, Khar West, Piramal Chamber, Mumbai-400 052 Dr. Ss Rao Marg, Parel, Mumbai 0 400 012 Pan/Gir No. Aahpm2793F (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ashwani Kumar A/W Ms. Deepali Aggarwal, Ld. Ars Revenue By Shri Umashankar Prasad, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 12.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 19.02.2026

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 94(7)Section 94(8)

…4,70,46,776/- was allowed. If purchase and sale transactions are accepted as genuine, dividend arising therefrom cannot be selectively treated as fictitious without cogent evidence. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Walfort Share & Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd. 326 ITR 1 (SC) has clearly held that dividend stripping transactions prior to insertion of section 94(7) cannot be treated as sham and that Parliament has not treated such transactions as bogus but only restricted loss to extent of dividend. Even post section 94(7), loss is to be restricted only to the extent of dividend received and not entire transaction t…

ACIT., CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD vs. ENGENRIN HYDRO POWER LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 831/HYD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

Section 115JSection 14ASection 14A(3)

…आयकर अपीऱीय न्यायाधिकरण में, हैदराबाद „ए‟ बेंच, हैदराबाद IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad “A” Bench, Hyderabad श्री मंजुनाथा जी., माननीय ऱेखा सदस्य एवं श्री रवीश सूद, माननीय न्याययक सदस्य SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.828/Hyd/2024 to 831/Hyd/2024 (ननधधारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2016-17, 2017-18 and 2018-19) Asst.Commissioner of Vs. Engenrin Hydro Power Income Tax Limited Circle-5(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad PAN : AABCV6385R (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ : Shri P. Murali Mohan Ra…

ACIT., CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD vs. ENGENRIN HYDRO POWER LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 830/HYD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

Section 115JSection 14ASection 14A(3)

…आयकर अपीऱीय न्यायाधिकरण में, हैदराबाद „ए‟ बेंच, हैदराबाद IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad “A” Bench, Hyderabad श्री मंजुनाथा जी., माननीय ऱेखा सदस्य एवं श्री रवीश सूद, माननीय न्याययक सदस्य SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.828/Hyd/2024 to 831/Hyd/2024 (ननधधारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2016-17, 2017-18 and 2018-19) Asst.Commissioner of Vs. Engenrin Hydro Power Income Tax Limited Circle-5(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad PAN : AABCV6385R (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ : Shri P. Murali Mohan Ra…

ACIT., CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD vs. ENGENRIN HYDRO POWER LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 829/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

Section 115JSection 14ASection 14A(3)

…आयकर अपीऱीय न्यायाधिकरण में, हैदराबाद „ए‟ बेंच, हैदराबाद IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad “A” Bench, Hyderabad श्री मंजुनाथा जी., माननीय ऱेखा सदस्य एवं श्री रवीश सूद, माननीय न्याययक सदस्य SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.828/Hyd/2024 to 831/Hyd/2024 (ननधधारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2016-17, 2017-18 and 2018-19) Asst.Commissioner of Vs. Engenrin Hydro Power Income Tax Limited Circle-5(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad PAN : AABCV6385R (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ : Shri P. Murali Mohan Ra…

ACIT., CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD vs. ENGENRIN HYDRO POWER LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 828/HYD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

Section 115JSection 14ASection 14A(3)

…आयकर अपीऱीय न्यायाधिकरण में, हैदराबाद „ए‟ बेंच, हैदराबाद IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad “A” Bench, Hyderabad श्री मंजुनाथा जी., माननीय ऱेखा सदस्य एवं श्री रवीश सूद, माननीय न्याययक सदस्य SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.828/Hyd/2024 to 831/Hyd/2024 (ननधधारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2016-17, 2017-18 and 2018-19) Asst.Commissioner of Vs. Engenrin Hydro Power Income Tax Limited Circle-5(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad PAN : AABCV6385R (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ : Shri P. Murali Mohan Ra…

DCIT, CIR-5(1), , KOLKATA vs. M/S COAL INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

ITA 1697/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115JSection 250

…but the findings of AO that the assessee was required to supervise and administer all the investments made. 5.2. It is pertinent to refer to the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of CIT vs Walfort Share & Stock Brokers (P) Ltd. (2010) 326 ITR 1 (SC) defining the scope of section 14A of the Page 29 ITA Nos.: 466, 622, 467, 623/KOL/2018 & 1406, 1696, 1407, 1697/KOL/2019 AYs: 2011-12 to 2014-15 M/s. Coal India Ltd. Act incorporated retrospectively from 1st April, 1962. Relevant portion is reproduced herein below: 5.3. It is further apposite to refer to the decision of the ITAT Mumbai Bench i…

M/S COAL INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-5(1), , KOLKATA

ITA 1407/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 1Section 115JSection 250

…but the findings of AO that the assessee was required to supervise and administer all the investments made. 5.2. It is pertinent to refer to the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of CIT vs Walfort Share & Stock Brokers (P) Ltd. (2010) 326 ITR 1 (SC) defining the scope of section 14A of the Act incorporated retrospectively from 1st April, 1962. Relevant portion is reproduced herein below: 5.3. It is further apposite to refer to the decision of the ITAT Mumbai Bench in the case of ACIT vs Citicorp Finance (India) Ltd. (2007) 108ITD 457 dated 21st November, 2006 wherein on similar facts, the…

DCIT, CIRCLE - 5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. COAL INDIA LIMITED , KOLKATA

ITA 623/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jan 2026AY 2012-13
Section 115JSection 250

…but the findings of AO that the assessee was required to supervise and administer all the investments made. 5.2. It is pertinent to refer to the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of CIT vs Walfort Share & Stock Brokers (P) Ltd. (2010) 326 ITR 1 (SC) defining the scope of section 14A of the Act incorporated retrospectively from 1st April, 1962. Relevant portion is reproduced herein below: 5.3. It is further apposite to refer to the decision of the ITAT Mumbai Bench in the case of ACIT vs Citicorp Finance (India) Ltd. (2007) 108ITD 457 dated 21st November, 2006 wherein on similar facts, the…

DCIT, CIRCLE - 5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. COAL INDIA LIMITED , KOLKATA

ITA 622/KOL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115JSection 250

…but the findings of AO that the assessee was required to supervise and administer all the investments made. 5.2. It is pertinent to refer to the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of CIT vs Walfort Share & Stock Brokers (P) Ltd. (2010) 326 ITR 1 (SC) defining the scope of section 14A of the Act incorporated retrospectively from 1st April, 1962. Relevant portion is reproduced herein below: 5.3. It is further apposite to refer to the decision of the ITAT Mumbai Bench in the case of ACIT vs Citicorp Finance (India) Ltd. (2007) 108ITD 457 dated 21st November, 2006 wherein on similar facts, the…

COAL INDIA LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

ITA 467/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115JSection 250

…but the findings of AO that the assessee was required to supervise and administer all the investments made. 5.2. It is pertinent to refer to the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of CIT vs Walfort Share & Stock Brokers (P) Ltd. (2010) 326 ITR 1 (SC) defining the scope of section 14A of the Page 30 ITA Nos.: 466, 622, 467, 623/KOL/2018 & 1406, 1696, 1407, 1697/KOL/2019 AYs: 2011-12 to 2014-15 M/s. Coal India Ltd. Act incorporated retrospectively from 1st April, 1962. Relevant portion is reproduced herein below: 5.3. It is further apposite to refer to the decision of the ITAT Mumbai Bench i…

WINDSTON SPRINGS PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DY. CIT -8(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal for assessment year 2015-16 is allowed

ITA 704/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT D.R
Section 36(1)(iii)Section 50

…d funds were utilised for making the investment and that the Assessing Officer had failed to record satisfaction as required under section 14A(2). Reliance was placed on the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Walfort Shares & Securities Ltd. v. CIT (326 ITR 1), the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana ITA No. 704 & 703/Mum/2025 Windston Springs Private Limited :- 7 -: High Court in CIT v. Hero Cycles Ltd. (323 ITR 518) and the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT. 15. The Ld. Departmental Representative (“Ld.DR”) relied on the orders of the lower authorities. 16. We have considered the r…

WINDSTON SPRINGS PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DY. CIT -8(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal for assessment year 2015-16 is allowed

ITA 703/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT D.R
Section 36(1)(iii)Section 50

…d funds were utilised for making the investment and that the Assessing Officer had failed to record satisfaction as required under section 14A(2). Reliance was placed on the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Walfort Shares & Securities Ltd. v. CIT (326 ITR 1), the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana ITA No. 704 & 703/Mum/2025 Windston Springs Private Limited :- 7 -: High Court in CIT v. Hero Cycles Ltd. (323 ITR 518) and the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT. 15. The Ld. Departmental Representative (“Ld.DR”) relied on the orders of the lower authorities. 16. We have considered the r…

ACIT CIRCLE-1 , DHANBAD vs. M/S BHARAT COOKING COAL LTD , DHANBAD

ITA 302/RAN/2017[11-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi06 Jan 2026

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.291,293,294/Ran/2017 (A.Y :2009-10, 2011-12 & 2012-13) M/S Bharat Coking Coal Ltd, Finance Directorate, Koyla Bhawan, Koyla Nagar, P.O.Bccl, Township, Dhanbad-826005 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aaacb 7934 M Vs. Acit, Circle-1, Dhanbad & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.300 & 302/Ran/2017 (A.Y :2009-10 & 2011-12) Acit, Circle-1, Dhanbad Vs. M/S Bharat Coking Coal Ltd, Finance Directorate, Koyla Bhawan, Koyla Nagar, P.O.Bccl, Township, Dhanbad-826005 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Acb 7934 M & Cross Objection Nos.09 & 11/Ran/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos.300&302/Ran/2017) (A.Y :2009-10 & 2011-12) M/S Bharat Coking Coal Ltd, Vs. Acit, Circle-1, Dhanbad Finance Directorate, Koyla Bhawan, Koyla Nagar, P.O.Bccl, Township, Dhanbad-826005 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Acb 7934 M (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्धारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri M.K.Chowdhary & Shri Devesh Poddar, Advocates राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Rajib Jain, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 06/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 06/01/2026 आदेश / Order Per Bench : These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & Revenue Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Id.Cit(A), Ranchi/Nfac, Delhi, Dated 20.09.2017 & 19.09.2017 For The Assessment Years 2009-10, 2011- 12 & 2012-13, Respectively. The Assessee Has Also Filed Cross Objections Arising Out Of Appeals Of Revenue For A.Y.2009-2010 & 2011-2012. 2. First, We Shall Take Up The Appeals Of The Revenue Filed For A.Y.2009- 2010 & 2011-2012. Ld. Ar, At The Outset, Filed A Chart Specifying The Issues Involved In The Appeals Of The Revenue, Which Reads As Follows :- Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Dhanbad Pan: Aaacb7934M Additions Disputed In Appeal Before Hon'Ble Itat - By It Department Si No.

For Appellant: Shri M.K.ChowdharyFor Respondent: Shri Rajib Jain, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 300Section 32(2)

…to reach the said conclusion namely, in the cases of CIT Vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. reported in [2014] 366 ITR 505 (Bombay), CIT Vs. Hero Cycles Ltd. reported in [2010] 323 ITR 518 (Punjab & Haryana), CIT Vs. Walfort Share & Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd. reported in [2010] 326 ITR 1 (SC) and CIT Vs. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. reported in [2009] 313 ITR 340 (Bombay). Considering these facts and the ratio laid down in the various decisions, we are inclined to uphold the order of Ld. CIT(A) wherein it has held that no disallowance is required under rule 8D(2)(ii) by dismissing the ground no. 2 raised by the Revenue. 9. We co…

ACIT CIR-1 , DHANBAD vs. M/S BHARAT COOKING COAL LTD , DHANBAD

ITA 300/RAN/2017[09-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi06 Jan 2026

Bench: Hon'Ble Itat - By It Department Si No.

Section 1Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 32(2)

…to reach the said conclusion namely, in the cases of CIT Vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. reported in [2014] 366 ITR 505 (Bombay), CIT Vs. Hero Cycles Ltd. reported in [2010] 323 ITR 518 (Punjab & Haryana), CIT Vs. Walfort Share & Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd. reported in [2010] 326 ITR 1 (SC) and CIT Vs. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. reported in [2009] 313 ITR 340 (Bombay). Considering these facts and the ratio laid down in the various decisions, we are inclined to uphold the order of Ld. CIT(A) wherein it has held that no disallowance is required under rule 8D(2)(ii) by dismissing the ground no. 2 raised by the Revenue. 9. We co…

M/S BHARAT COOKING COAL LTD ,DHANBAD vs. ACIT CIR-1 , DHANBAD

ITA 294/RAN/2017[12-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi06 Jan 2026

Bench: Hon'Ble Itat - By It Department Si No.

Section 1Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 32(2)

…to reach the said conclusion namely, in the cases of CIT Vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. reported in [2014] 366 ITR 505 (Bombay), CIT Vs. Hero Cycles Ltd. reported in [2010] 323 ITR 518 (Punjab & Haryana), CIT Vs. Walfort Share & Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd. reported in [2010] 326 ITR 1 (SC) and CIT Vs. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. reported in [2009] 313 ITR 340 (Bombay). Considering these facts and the ratio laid down in the various decisions, we are inclined to uphold the order of Ld. CIT(A) wherein it has held that no disallowance is required under rule 8D(2)(ii) by dismissing the ground no. 2 raised by the Revenue. 9. We co…

M/S BHARAT COOKING COAL LTD ,DHANBAD vs. ACIT CIR-1 , DHANBAD

ITA 293/RAN/2017[11-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi06 Jan 2026

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.291,293,294/Ran/2017 (A.Y :2009-10, 2011-12 & 2012-13) M/S Bharat Coking Coal Ltd, Vs. Acit, Circle-1, Dhanbad Finance Directorate, Koyla Bhawan, Koyla Nagar, P.O.Bccl, Township, Dhanbad-826005 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aaacb 7934 M & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.300 & 302/Ran/2017 (A.Y :2009-10 & 2011-12) Acit, Circle-1, Dhanbad Vs. M/S Bharat Coking Coal Ltd, Finance Directorate, Koyla Bhawan, Koyla Nagar, P.O.Bccl, Township, Dhanbad-826005 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Acb 7934 M & Cross Objection Nos.09 & 11/Ran/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos.300&302/Ran/2017) (Α.Υ :2009-10 & 2011-12) M/S Bharat Coking Coal Ltd, Vs. Acit, Circle-1, Dhanbad Finance Directorate, Koyla Bhawan, Koyla Nagar, P.O.Bccl, Township, Dhanbad-826005 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Acb 7934 M (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्धारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri M.K.Chowdhary & Shri Devesh Poddar, Advocates राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Rajib Jain, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 06/01/2026 : 06/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement Per Bench : आदेश / Order These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & Revenue Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Id.Cit(A), Ranchi/Nfac, Delhi, Dated 20.09.2017 & 19.09.2017 For The Assessment Years 2009-10, 2011- 12 & 2012-13, Respectively. The Assessee Has Also Filed Cross Objections Arising Out Of Appeals Of Revenue For A.Y.2009-2010 & 2011-2012. 2. First, We Shall Take Up The Appeals Of The Revenue Filed For A.Y.2009- 2010 & 2011-2012. Ld. Ar, At The Outset, Filed A Chart Specifying The Issues Involved In The Appeals Of The Revenue, Which Reads As Follows :- Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Dhanbad Pan: Aaacb7934M Additions Disputed In Appeal Before Hon'Ble Itat - By It Department Si No.

For Appellant: Shri M.K.ChowdharyFor Respondent: Shri Rajib Jain, CIT-DR
Section 1Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 32(2)

…to reach the said conclusion namely, in the cases of CIT Vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. reported in [2014] 366 ITR 505 (Bombay), CIT Vs. Hero Cycles Ltd. reported in [2010] 323 ITR 518 (Punjab & Haryana), CIT Vs. Walfort Share & Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd. reported in [2010] 326 ITR 1 (SC) and CIT Vs. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. reported in [2009] 313 ITR 340 (Bombay). Considering these facts and the ratio laid down in the various decisions, we are inclined to uphold the order of Ld. CIT(A) wherein it has held that no disallowance is required under rule 8D(2)(ii) by dismissing the ground no. 2 raised by the Revenue. 9. We co…

Showing 1–20 of 543 · Page 1 of 28

...