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

326 ITR 1Supreme Court of India2010#116 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 367,181 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
Read the full judgment

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. Ntpc Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3590/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 May 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. A.D. Jaindr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 3590/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year: 2006-07 Ita No.3194 /Del/2016 : Asstt. Year: 2006-07 Dcit, Vs Ntpc Limited, Circle-18(2), Ntpc Bhawan, Scope Complex, New Delhi-110002 7, Institutional Area, Lodi Road, New Delhi-110003 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacn0255D

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Sarita Kumari, CIT-DR
Section 14ASection 27Section 271(1)(c)Section 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘E’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. A.D. Jain, Vice President Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member (Through Video Conferencing) ITA No. 3590/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year: 2006-07 ITA No.3194 /Del/2016 : Asstt. Year: 2006-07 DCIT, Vs NTPC Limited, Circle-18(2), NTPC Bhawan, Scope Complex, New Delhi-110002 7, Institutional Area, Lodi Road, New Delhi-110003 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAACN0255D ITA No. 3535/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year: 2006-07 ITA No. 2972/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year: 2006-07 NTPC Limited, Vs DCIT, NTPC Bhawan, Scope Complex, Circle-18(2), 7, Institutional Area, Lo…

M/S. Ntpc Limited, New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3535/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 May 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. A.D. Jaindr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 3590/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year: 2006-07 Ita No.3194 /Del/2016 : Asstt. Year: 2006-07 Dcit, Vs Ntpc Limited, Circle-18(2), Ntpc Bhawan, Scope Complex, New Delhi-110002 7, Institutional Area, Lodi Road, New Delhi-110003 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacn0255D

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Sarita Kumari, CIT-DR
Section 14ASection 27Section 271(1)(c)Section 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘E’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. A.D. Jain, Vice President Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member (Through Video Conferencing) ITA No. 3590/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year: 2006-07 ITA No.3194 /Del/2016 : Asstt. Year: 2006-07 DCIT, Vs NTPC Limited, Circle-18(2), NTPC Bhawan, Scope Complex, New Delhi-110002 7, Institutional Area, Lodi Road, New Delhi-110003 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAACN0255D ITA No. 3535/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year: 2006-07 ITA No. 2972/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year: 2006-07 NTPC Limited, Vs DCIT, NTPC Bhawan, Scope Complex, Circle-18(2), 7, Institutional Area, Lo…

ACIT, C-4(1), Chandigarh vs. The Punjab State Co-Op. Supply and Marketing Federation Ltd., Chandigarh

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 998/CHANDI/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Feb 2022AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Aman Parti, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sarabjeet Singh, CIT,DR
Section 14A

…Ld.CIT(A) is justified in restricting the disallowance to the extent of exempt income received, ignoring the principal of apportionment regardless of exempt income laid down by Hon'ble’ Supreme Court decision in CIT vs. Walfort Share and stock Brokers P Ltd: 326 ITR 1 (SC) and upheld by the Hon'ble’ Supreme Court in 91 Taxmann.com 154(SC) ? (xi) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) is justified in restricting the disallowance to the extent of exempt income received, ignoring the fact that Hon'ble’ Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 1423 of 2015 filed by Avon Cycles Ltd…

M/S. Praxair India Pvt. Ltd, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2209/BANG/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Feb 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri T Suryanarayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Vandana Sagar, CIT(DR)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 37Section 40Section 40aSection 92C

…of exemption of exempt income without making any apportionment of expenses incurred in relation to exempt income. The High Court of Madras has relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. WALFORT SHARE AND STOCK BROKERS (2010) 326 ITR 1 wherein it has been held that Section 14A is relatable to income of actual income or not notional or anticipated income. Therefore, the conclusion arrived at by us in MIS NOVEL SOFTWARE INDIA (P) LTD. is affirmed but for different reasons. It is also clarified by us that while recording the conclusion in KINGFISHER FIN VEST LTD. that disallowance u…

The DCIT, Kochi vs. M/S.Sfo Technologies P. Ltd, Aluva

In the result, this appeal filed by Revenue in ITA

ITA 404/COCH/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin24 Feb 2022AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Smt. Jamunna Devi, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Shri Anil D. Nair& Smt. Telma
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 92C

…bility of earning the exempt income and the circular is not overriding the express provisions of Section 14A read with Rule 8D. 7. Learned CIT(A) ought to have considered that in the case of CIT v. Walfort Share &Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd. [2010] 192 Taxman 211/326 ITR 1 (SC), followed in Godrej &Boyce Mfg, Co. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2017] 81 taxmann.com 111 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while noticing the objects and reasons behind introduction of Section 14A of the Income Tax Act 1961, held that "Expenses allowed can only be in respect of earning of taxable income." 8. Learned CIT(A) erred in not considering the re…

The DCIT, Kochi vs. M/S.Sfo Technologies P. Ltd, Aluva

In the result, this appeal filed by Revenue in ITA

ITA 403/COCH/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin24 Feb 2022AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Smt. Jamunna Devi, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Shri Anil D. Nair& Smt. Telma
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 92C

…bility of earning the exempt income and the circular is not overriding the express provisions of Section 14A read with Rule 8D. 7. Learned CIT(A) ought to have considered that in the case of CIT v. Walfort Share &Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd. [2010] 192 Taxman 211/326 ITR 1 (SC), followed in Godrej &Boyce Mfg, Co. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2017] 81 taxmann.com 111 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while noticing the objects and reasons behind introduction of Section 14A of the Income Tax Act 1961, held that "Expenses allowed can only be in respect of earning of taxable income." 8. Learned CIT(A) erred in not considering the re…

The DCIT, Kochi vs. M/S.Sfo Technologies P. Ltd, Aluva

In the result, this appeal filed by Revenue in ITA

ITA 402/COCH/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin24 Feb 2022AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Smt. Jamunna Devi, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Shri Anil D. Nair& Smt. Telma
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 92C

…bility of earning the exempt income and the circular is not overriding the express provisions of Section 14A read with Rule 8D. 7. Learned CIT(A) ought to have considered that in the case of CIT v. Walfort Share &Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd. [2010] 192 Taxman 211/326 ITR 1 (SC), followed in Godrej &Boyce Mfg, Co. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2017] 81 taxmann.com 111 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while noticing the objects and reasons behind introduction of Section 14A of the Income Tax Act 1961, held that "Expenses allowed can only be in respect of earning of taxable income." 8. Learned CIT(A) erred in not considering the re…

The DCIT, Kochi vs. M/S.Sfo Technologies P. Ltd, Ernakulam

In the result, this appeal filed by Revenue in ITA

ITA 401/COCH/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin24 Feb 2022AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Smt. Jamunna Devi, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Shri Anil D. Nair& Smt. Telma
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 92C

…bility of earning the exempt income and the circular is not overriding the express provisions of Section 14A read with Rule 8D. 7. Learned CIT(A) ought to have considered that in the case of CIT v. Walfort Share &Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd. [2010] 192 Taxman 211/326 ITR 1 (SC), followed in Godrej &Boyce Mfg, Co. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2017] 81 taxmann.com 111 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while noticing the objects and reasons behind introduction of Section 14A of the Income Tax Act 1961, held that "Expenses allowed can only be in respect of earning of taxable income." 8. Learned CIT(A) erred in not considering the re…

The DCIT, Kochi vs. M/S.Sfo Technologies P. Ltd, Aluva

In the result, this appeal filed by Revenue in ITA

ITA 400/COCH/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin24 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Smt. Jamunna Devi, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Shri Anil D. Nair& Smt. Telma
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 92C

…bility of earning the exempt income and the circular is not overriding the express provisions of Section 14A read with Rule 8D. 7. Learned CIT(A) ought to have considered that in the case of CIT v. Walfort Share &Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd. [2010] 192 Taxman 211/326 ITR 1 (SC), followed in Godrej &Boyce Mfg, Co. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2017] 81 taxmann.com 111 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while noticing the objects and reasons behind introduction of Section 14A of the Income Tax Act 1961, held that "Expenses allowed can only be in respect of earning of taxable income." 8. Learned CIT(A) erred in not considering the re…

Gopal Das Estates & Housing Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for

ITA 2576/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Kul Bharat

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 23

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “C” BENCH: NEW DELHI (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING) BEFORE SHRI G.S.PANNU, PRESIDENT & SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.2576/Del/2015 & 2523/Del/2017 [Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13] Gopal Das Estates & Housing Pvt. Ltd. vs DCIT 16th Floor, Dr. Gopal Das Bhawan, Company Circle 10(1) 28, Barakhamba Road New Delhi New Delhi-110001. PAN-AAACG0072F APPELLANT RESPONDENT [Assessment Year : 2011-12] vs DCIT Gopal Das Estates & Housing Pvt. Ltd. Circle-10(1) 16th Floor, Dr. Gopal Das Bhawan, 28, New Delhi Barakhamba Road, New Delhi PAN-AAACG0072F APPELLANT RESPONDE…

The DCIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Astral Polytechnik Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, we do not find any merit in the appeal of Revenue

ITA 1966/AHD/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Jan 2022AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Vartik Chokshi, A.R. & Shri BirenFor Respondent: Shri S. S. Shukla,Sr. DR
Section 14ASection 250

…it does not account for the concept of 'real income'. It does not note that under Section 5 of the Act, the question of taxation of 'notional income' does not arise. As explained in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Walfort Share and Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd [2010] 326 ITR 1 (SC), the mandate of Section 14A of the Act is to curb the practice of claiming deduction of expenses incurred in relation to exempt income being taxable income and at the same time avail of the tax incentives by way of exemption of exempt income without making any apportionment of expenses incurred in relation to exempt income. Consequently, the C…

DCIT, 4(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Icici Securities Dealership Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 594/MUM/2019[2000-01]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai05 Jan 2022AY 2000-01
For Appellant: Shri Krupa GandhiFor Respondent: Shri Dharmvir
Section 10(33)Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 14A

…In the said decision, in Para.39, it has been held that the applicability of Sec.14A of the Act which is based on the theory of apportionment of expenditure between taxable and non- taxable income, as held in Walfort Shares and Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. (2010) 192 Taxmann 211(SC), will be triggered even in cases where the shares are held as stock in trade and certain dividend is also earned though incidentally and expenditure incurred in acquiring those shares will have to be apportioned depending on the facts of the case. 5.3 The appellant has submitted that the AO had disallowed 5% of the indirect expenses of R…

The Karnataka Bank Ltd, Mangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Mangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed and the appeal of the revenue is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1906/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Dec 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Ananthan & Smt. R. Lalitha, A.RsFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 40

…s for earning these exempted income and those expenses are disallowable u/s 14A of the Act. The AO also took support of decision rendered by Hon’ble Bombay High Court inthe case of Godrej Boyce Vs. DCIT 328 ITR 81. CIT Vs. Walfort Share and Stock Broker Ltd., 326 ITR 1. Accordingly he computed disallowance u/s 14A of the Act by applying Rule 8D which worked out to Rs.14.96 crore. 5. In the appellate proceedings, the ld CIT(A) appreciated the fact that the interest free funds available with the assessee is more than the value of investments. Hence, as per decision rendered by Hon’ble Karnataka High Court inthe ca…

JCIT(OSD), Circle-16(2), New Delhi vs. Media Transasia India Private Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, this appeal is dismissed

ITA 4849/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Dec 2021AY 2014-15
Section 14Section 14ASection 37

…ional upon the earning of the income as upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Rajendra Prasad Moody [1978] 115 ITR 519 and without considering ratio decidendi as upheld in the cases of CIT Vs. Walfort Share and Stock Brokers P. Ltd [2010] 326 ITR 1 (SC) and Maxopp Investment Vs CIT [2012] 347 ITR 272 (Delhi) on application of provisions of section 14A of the Act ? 4. That the appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or forgo any ground/(s) of appeal either before or at the time of hearing of the appeal.” (B) At the time of hearing, no one was present on behalf of the assessee, but through…

DCIT Corporate Circle 3(1), Chennai vs. Tamilnadu Power Finance & Infrastructure Development Corpn Ltd., Chennai

The appeal stand dismissed

ITA 659/CHNY/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Dec 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri G. Johnson, (Addl.CIT)-Ld. DRFor Respondent: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, (Adv.)- Ld. AR
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘सी’ "ायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी वी दुगा" राव, "ाियक सद" एवं "ी मनोज कुमार अ$वाल, लेखा सद" के सम& BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.659/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2012-13 DCIT- Corporate Circle 3(1) M/s. Tamilnadu Power Finance and Chennai. Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd., बनाम/ Tufidco-powerfin Tower, Vs. No.490/3-4, Anna Salai, Nandanam, Chennai – 600 035. (थायी लेखा सं./जीआइ आर सं./PAN/GIR No. AAACT-2840-A (अपीलाथ,/Appellant) : (/0थ, / Responde…

Hero Moto Corp Ltd., New Delhi vs. Neac, Delhi

ITA 706/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Pal
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144CSection 144C(13)Section 145Section 1lSection 80ISection 92C

…lowance followed by the appellant. In the absence of any satisfaction recorded in the assessment order, the disallowance as per Rule 8D needs to be deleted. Reliance in this regard is placed on the following decisions: i. CIT vs. Walfort Share & Stock Brokers 326 ITR 1(SC) ii. Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd. VS. DCIT: 394 ITR 449(SC) iii. Maxopp Investment Ltd: 347 ITR 272 (Del.)- Affirmed by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in 402 ITR 640 iv. CIT v. Essar Teleholdings Ltd.: 401 ITR 445 (SC) v. PCIT v. Vedanta Ltd.:[2019] 261 Taxman 179 (Delhi) vi. H.T. Media Limited v. PCIT: 399 ITR 576 (Del) vii. Eicher Moto…

M/S. Trianz Holdings Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 7(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, ground 34 is allowed

ITA 2639/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Nov 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm It(Tp)A No.2639/Bang/2019 : Asst.Year 2015-2016 M/S.Trianz Holdings Pvt. Ltd. The Assistant Commissioner #165/2, 6Th Floor, Kalyani Of Income-Tax, Circle 7(1)(1) V. Bangalore. Magnum, Doraisanipalya, Iim Post Bennerghatta Road Bangalore – 560 076. Pan : Aafca8051P. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.K.R.Vasudevan, Advocate Respondent By : Sri.Pradeep Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 16.11.2021 Date Of Hearing : 15.11.2021 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against Final Assessment Order Dated 30.10.2019. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2015-2016. 2. The Assesee Has Raised 36 Grounds In Its Memorandum Of Appeal. However, Learned Ar Had Argued Only Following Six Issues:-

For Appellant: Sri.K.R.Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Pradeep Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 10ASection 14A

…tion shall be allowable in respect of expenditure incurred in relation to the earning of income exempt from taxation. As observed by the Supreme Court in the judgment in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Walfort Share and Stock Brokers (P) Ltd (2010) 326 ITR 1 '.... The mandate of s.14A is clear. It desires to curb the practice to claim deduction of expenses incurred in relation to exempt income against taxable income and at the same time avail of the tax incentive by way of an exemption of exempt income without making any apportionment of expenses incurred in relation to exempt income.' 10.The provision…

ACIT, Circle- 17(2), New Delhi vs. National Fertilizers Ltd., New Delhi

Appeal are dismissed

ITA 3698/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Sh. Prashant Maharishi

Section 145Section 14ASection 32Section 37(1)Section 40

…nditional upon the earning of the income as upheld by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Rajendra Prasad Moody [1978] 115 ITR 519 and without considering ratio decidendi as upheld in the cases of CIT Vs. Walfort Share and Stock Brokers P. Ltd [2010] 326 ITR 1 (SC) and Maxopp Investment Vs CIT [2012] 347 ITR 272 (Delhi) on application of provisions of section 14A of the Act? 7. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld CIT (A) is legally justified in deleting disallowance of Rs. 6,45,673/- on account of additional depreciation claimed u/s 32 (1) (iia) of the Act without considering the fact…

ACIT, Circle- 17(2), New Delhi vs. National Fertilizers Ltd., New Delhi

Appeal are dismissed

ITA 3697/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Sh. Prashant Maharishi

Section 145Section 14ASection 32Section 37(1)Section 40

…nditional upon the earning of the income as upheld by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Rajendra Prasad Moody [1978] 115 ITR 519 and without considering ratio decidendi as upheld in the cases of CIT Vs. Walfort Share and Stock Brokers P. Ltd [2010] 326 ITR 1 (SC) and Maxopp Investment Vs CIT [2012] 347 ITR 272 (Delhi) on application of provisions of section 14A of the Act? 7. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld CIT (A) is legally justified in deleting disallowance of Rs. 6,45,673/- on account of additional depreciation claimed u/s 32 (1) (iia) of the Act without considering the fact…

National Fertilizers Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 17(2), New Delhi

Appeal are dismissed

ITA 3438/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Sh. Prashant Maharishi

Section 145Section 14ASection 32Section 37(1)Section 40

…nditional upon the earning of the income as upheld by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Rajendra Prasad Moody [1978] 115 ITR 519 and without considering ratio decidendi as upheld in the cases of CIT Vs. Walfort Share and Stock Brokers P. Ltd [2010] 326 ITR 1 (SC) and Maxopp Investment Vs CIT [2012] 347 ITR 272 (Delhi) on application of provisions of section 14A of the Act? 7. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld CIT (A) is legally justified in deleting disallowance of Rs. 6,45,673/- on account of additional depreciation claimed u/s 32 (1) (iia) of the Act without considering the fact…