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. Ifci Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 2062/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 14Section 143Section 43B

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “C ”: NEW DELHI BEFORE MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No Assessment Year 3207/del/2011 2005-06 2199/del/2011 2006 – 07 1631/del/2011 2007 – 08 2062/Del/2012 2008-09 The Deputy Commissioner of IFCI LIMITED Vs. Income Tax IFCI Towers Circle – 11(1) C R Building 61 Nehru Place I P Estate New Delhi New Delhi PAN: AAACT0668G (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA/ Co No Assessment Year 3443/Del/2011 2005-06 1984/Del/2012 2008-09 2473/del/2014 2009-10 5381/Del/2014 2009-10 The Deputy Commissioner IFCI LIMITED Vs. of Income Tax I…

Ifci Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 1984/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 14Section 143Section 43B

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “C ”: NEW DELHI BEFORE MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No Assessment Year 3207/del/2011 2005-06 2199/del/2011 2006 – 07 1631/del/2011 2007 – 08 2062/Del/2012 2008-09 The Deputy Commissioner of IFCI LIMITED Vs. Income Tax IFCI Towers Circle – 11(1) C R Building 61 Nehru Place I P Estate New Delhi New Delhi PAN: AAACT0668G (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA/ Co No Assessment Year 3443/Del/2011 2005-06 1984/Del/2012 2008-09 2473/del/2014 2009-10 5381/Del/2014 2009-10 The Deputy Commissioner IFCI LIMITED Vs. of Income Tax I…

Ifci Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 3443/DEL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2020AY 2005-06

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 14Section 143Section 43B

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “C ”: NEW DELHI BEFORE MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No Assessment Year 3207/del/2011 2005-06 2199/del/2011 2006 – 07 1631/del/2011 2007 – 08 2062/Del/2012 2008-09 The Deputy Commissioner of IFCI LIMITED Vs. Income Tax IFCI Towers Circle – 11(1) C R Building 61 Nehru Place I P Estate New Delhi New Delhi PAN: AAACT0668G (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA/ Co No Assessment Year 3443/Del/2011 2005-06 1984/Del/2012 2008-09 2473/del/2014 2009-10 5381/Del/2014 2009-10 The Deputy Commissioner IFCI LIMITED Vs. of Income Tax I…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Ifci Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 3207/DEL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2020AY 2005-06

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 14Section 143Section 43B

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “C ”: NEW DELHI BEFORE MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No Assessment Year 3207/del/2011 2005-06 2199/del/2011 2006 – 07 1631/del/2011 2007 – 08 2062/Del/2012 2008-09 The Deputy Commissioner of IFCI LIMITED Vs. Income Tax IFCI Towers Circle – 11(1) C R Building 61 Nehru Place I P Estate New Delhi New Delhi PAN: AAACT0668G (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA/ Co No Assessment Year 3443/Del/2011 2005-06 1984/Del/2012 2008-09 2473/del/2014 2009-10 5381/Del/2014 2009-10 The Deputy Commissioner IFCI LIMITED Vs. of Income Tax I…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Ifci Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 2199/DEL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2020AY 2006-07

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 14Section 143Section 43B

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “C ”: NEW DELHI BEFORE MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No Assessment Year 3207/del/2011 2005-06 2199/del/2011 2006 – 07 1631/del/2011 2007 – 08 2062/Del/2012 2008-09 The Deputy Commissioner of IFCI LIMITED Vs. Income Tax IFCI Towers Circle – 11(1) C R Building 61 Nehru Place I P Estate New Delhi New Delhi PAN: AAACT0668G (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA/ Co No Assessment Year 3443/Del/2011 2005-06 1984/Del/2012 2008-09 2473/del/2014 2009-10 5381/Del/2014 2009-10 The Deputy Commissioner IFCI LIMITED Vs. of Income Tax I…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Ifci Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 1631/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 14Section 143Section 43B

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “C ”: NEW DELHI BEFORE MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No Assessment Year 3207/del/2011 2005-06 2199/del/2011 2006 – 07 1631/del/2011 2007 – 08 2062/Del/2012 2008-09 The Deputy Commissioner of IFCI LIMITED Vs. Income Tax IFCI Towers Circle – 11(1) C R Building 61 Nehru Place I P Estate New Delhi New Delhi PAN: AAACT0668G (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA/ Co No Assessment Year 3443/Del/2011 2005-06 1984/Del/2012 2008-09 2473/del/2014 2009-10 5381/Del/2014 2009-10 The Deputy Commissioner IFCI LIMITED Vs. of Income Tax I…

Ifci Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA number

ITA 4346/DEL/2010[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2020AY 2004-05

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 14Section 143Section 14A

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “C ”: NEW DELHI BEFORE MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No Assessment Year 4336/del/2010 2004 – 05 The Deputy Commissioner of IFCI LIMITED Vs. Income Tax IFCI Towers Circle – 11(1) 61 Nehru Place C R Building New Delhi I P Estate PAN: AAACT0668G New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA/ Co No Assessment Year 4346/del/2010 2004 – 05 IFCI LIMITED The Deputy Commissioner Vs. IFCI Towers of Income Tax 61 Nehru Place Circle – 11(1) New Delhi C R Building Page 1 of 14 PAN: AAACT0668G I P Estate New Delhi (Appellant)…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Ifci Ltd., New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA number

ITA 4336/DEL/2010[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2020AY 2004-05

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 14Section 143Section 14A

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “C ”: NEW DELHI BEFORE MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No Assessment Year 4336/del/2010 2004 – 05 The Deputy Commissioner of IFCI LIMITED Vs. Income Tax IFCI Towers Circle – 11(1) 61 Nehru Place C R Building New Delhi I P Estate PAN: AAACT0668G New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA/ Co No Assessment Year 4346/del/2010 2004 – 05 IFCI LIMITED The Deputy Commissioner Vs. IFCI Towers of Income Tax 61 Nehru Place Circle – 11(1) New Delhi C R Building Page 1 of 14 PAN: AAACT0668G I P Estate New Delhi (Appellant)…

Vinay Bhasin, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 61(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 6904/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Aug 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘F’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.6904/Del./2017 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Vinay Bhasin, Vs. ACIT, C-14, South Extension, Circle-61(1), Part-II, New Delhi New Delhi PAN :AAAPB3445J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri Salil Agarwal, Adv. Shri Shailesh Gupta, CA Respondent by Shri Saras Kumar, Sr. DR Date of hearing 24.08.2020 Date of pronouncement 27.08.2020 ORDER PER O.P. KANT, AM: This appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated 13/10/2017 passed by the Learned CI…

ACIT, Circle - 5(2), Kolkata vs. M/S. Hindusthan National Glass & Industries Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1467/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Aug 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Justice P.P. Bhatt & Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-

Section 10(34)Section 115JSection 134ASection 14A

…re to be incurred in relation to earn of such tax free income. According to Bombay High Court a disallowance u/s 134A may however be made on some fair and reasonable basis. The Supreme Court in the case of CIT –vs.- Walfort Share & Stock Brokers Pvt. Limited (326 ITR 1) has held that before making disallowance u/s 14A, Revenue must prove the proximate cause between the expenditure incurred and earning the exempt income. Unless such proximate cause is established no disallowance can he made u/s 14A merely on presumption that some expenditure might have been incurred by the assessee in relation to such exempt incom…

Sri Alok Agrawal, Sundergarh vs. Pr. CIT, Sambalpur

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 160/CTK/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack10 Aug 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita Nos.319/Ctk/2018 & Ita No.160/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2013-2014 & 2014-2015) Sri Alok Agrawal, Vs. Pr. Cit, Sambalpur Rathor Colony, Ocl Approach Road, Rajgangpur, District-Sundergarh Pan No. : Afkpa 2367 R (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.S.Poddar, Ca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 04/08/2020 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11/08/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per L.P.Sahu, Am: These Two Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Pr. Cit, Sambalpur, Dated 26.03.2018 & 26.03.2019 For The Assessment Years 2013-2014 & 2014-2015. 2. Similar Issue Has Been Raised In Both The Appeals, Therefore, For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity, We Shall Decide The Appeal Of The Assessee For A.Y.2013-2014 In Ita No.319/Ctk/2018 After Taking Into Consideration The Grounds & Facts Mentioned Therein & The Outcome Of The Same Shall Be Applied Mutatis Mutandis To The Appeal Of The Assessee For A.Y.2014-2015 Also. 3. Grounds Raised In Ita No.319/Ctk/2018 For A.Y.2013-2014 Are As Under :- 1. That The Notice Issued Under Section 263 By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Sambalpur (Hereinafter Referred To As "Pr. Cit") & The Order Passed Under Section 263 Is Unjustified, Arbitrary, Excessive, Contrary To Evidences & Bad In Law.

For Appellant: Shri S.S.Poddar, CAFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 263(1)

…– 5,53,606). Ld. Pr.CIT found that the assessment order was erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of revenue and relied many judgments which has been calculated in his revisonary order as under :- i) CIT Vs. Walfort Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. (2010) 326 ITR 1 (SC); ii) CIT Vs. V.P.Gopinathan (2001) 248 ITR 449 (SC); iii) Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC); and Dawjee Dadabhoy & Co. Vs. S.P.Jain (1957) 31 ITR 872 (Cal.) iv) 5. Against the above order passed by the Pr. CIT, the assessee is in appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. 6. Ld. AR at the outset of hearing he d…

Sri Alok Agarwal, Sundergarh vs. Principal CIT, Sambalpur

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 319/CTK/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack10 Aug 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita Nos.319/Ctk/2018 & Ita No.160/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2013-2014 & 2014-2015) Sri Alok Agrawal, Vs. Pr. Cit, Sambalpur Rathor Colony, Ocl Approach Road, Rajgangpur, District-Sundergarh Pan No. : Afkpa 2367 R (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.S.Poddar, Ca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 04/08/2020 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11/08/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per L.P.Sahu, Am: These Two Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Pr. Cit, Sambalpur, Dated 26.03.2018 & 26.03.2019 For The Assessment Years 2013-2014 & 2014-2015. 2. Similar Issue Has Been Raised In Both The Appeals, Therefore, For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity, We Shall Decide The Appeal Of The Assessee For A.Y.2013-2014 In Ita No.319/Ctk/2018 After Taking Into Consideration The Grounds & Facts Mentioned Therein & The Outcome Of The Same Shall Be Applied Mutatis Mutandis To The Appeal Of The Assessee For A.Y.2014-2015 Also. 3. Grounds Raised In Ita No.319/Ctk/2018 For A.Y.2013-2014 Are As Under :- 1. That The Notice Issued Under Section 263 By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Sambalpur (Hereinafter Referred To As "Pr. Cit") & The Order Passed Under Section 263 Is Unjustified, Arbitrary, Excessive, Contrary To Evidences & Bad In Law.

For Appellant: Shri S.S.Poddar, CAFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 263(1)

…– 5,53,606). Ld. Pr.CIT found that the assessment order was erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of revenue and relied many judgments which has been calculated in his revisonary order as under :- i) CIT Vs. Walfort Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. (2010) 326 ITR 1 (SC); ii) CIT Vs. V.P.Gopinathan (2001) 248 ITR 449 (SC); iii) Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC); and Dawjee Dadabhoy & Co. Vs. S.P.Jain (1957) 31 ITR 872 (Cal.) iv) 5. Against the above order passed by the Pr. CIT, the assessee is in appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. 6. Ld. AR at the outset of hearing he d…

Addl. CIT, Special Range-6, New Delhi vs. Mmtc Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5452/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jul 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Sainidr. B. R. R. Kumar(E-Court Module) Ita No. 5452/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Addl. Cit, Vs M/S Mmtc Ltd., Special Range-6, Core-1, Scope Complex, New Delhi Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm1433E Assessee By : Sh. Rohit Jain, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Pamita M. Biswas, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 23.07.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.07.2020

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Pamita M. Biswas, CIT DR
Section 11BSection 14A

…of the case, ld. CIT (A) is legally justified in reducing disallowance of Rs.10,08,27,210/- to Rs.1,75,000/- u/s 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without considering ratio decidendi as upheld in cases of CIT Vs Walfort Share and Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. [2010] 326 ITR 1 (SC) and Maxopp Investment Vs CIT [2012] 347 ITR 272 (Del.) on application of provisions of Section 14A of the Act?” 3. All the grounds relates to deletion of the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer u/s 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The short issue involved in the case is that whether only those investments are to be considered for compu…

Addl. CIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Mmtc Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3575/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jul 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Sainidr. B. R. R. Kumar(E-Court Module) Ita No. 3575/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Addl. Cit, Vs M/S Mmtc Ltd., Special Range-6, Core-1, Scope Complex, New Delhi Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm1433E Assessee By : Sh. Rohit Jain, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Pamita M. Biswas, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 23.07.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.07.2020

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Pamita M. Biswas, CIT DR
Section 14Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘E’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Bhavnesh Saini, Judicial Member Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member (E-Court Module) ITA No. 3575/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Addl. CIT, Vs M/s MMTC Ltd., Special Range-6, Core-1, Scope Complex, New Delhi Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAACM1433E Assessee by : Sh. Rohit Jain, Adv. Revenue by : Ms. Pamita M. Biswas, CIT DR Date of Hearing: 23.07.2020 Date of Pronouncement: 28.07.2020 ORDER Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member: The present appeal has been filed by the revenue against the order…

S. Ganesh, Mumbai vs. ACIT 11(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2024/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai08 Jul 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 154

…Court in the case of Maxopp Investments Company Ltd., reported in 402 ITR 640 (SC) after considering the various decisions of High Courts and Hon’ble Supreme Court more particularly in the case of CIT vs. Walfort Share and Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd., reported in 326 ITR 1 (SC) and Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd., reported in 328 ITR 81 among others had held as under:- 31. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the argument of counsel for the parties on both sides, in the light of various judgments which have Shri S. Ganesh. been cited before us, some of which have already been taken note of above. 32.…

The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Chandigarh vs. M/S TDS Management Consultant Pvt Ltd

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA/382/2019HC Punjab & Haryana06 Feb 2020

Bench: It Should Be Reinstated & Decided On Merits ? (Ii) Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Hon'Ble Itat Is Justified In Dismissing The Miscellaneous Application Of The Revenue Without Discussing The Merits Ignoring The Legislative Intent Expressed In Cbdt'S Anuradha 2020.02.12 17:37 I Attest To The Accuracy & Integrity Of This Document

Section 14ASection 260

…is justified in dismissing the Miscellaneous application and not deciding the merits, ignoring the principal of apportionment regardless of exempt income laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in CIT vs. Walfor Share and stock Brokers P Ltd : 326 ITR 1 (SC) and upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 91 Taxmann.com 154 (SC) ? (vi) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble ITAT is justified in dismissing the Miscellaneous application of the Revenue and not deciding the merits, whereas the disallowances wa restricted by Ld. CIT (A) to the extent except i…

Khorakiwala Holdings and Investments Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 14(2(1), Mumbai

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 2177/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri B. Srinivas, D.R &
Section 14ASection 2(22)(e)Section 68

…(P) Ltd. (2008) 174 Taxman 104 (Bom) (HC)/ (2008) 220 CTR 148 (Bom)(C) iv) Porrits and Spencer (Asia) Ltd. vs. CIT (2010) 329 itr 222 (P&H) v) F.E. Dinshaw Limited Vs. CIT (1959) 36 ITR 114 (Bom.) (HC) vi) CIT vs. Walfort Shares & Share Brokers (P) Ltd (2010) 326 ITR 1 (SC) The Ld. A.R. finally prayed before the Bench that in view of these foregoing arguments and the ratio laid down by various courts the addition of Rs.90 crores as confirmed by Ld. CIT(A) is M/s. Khorakiwala Holdings and Investments Pvt. Ltd. bad in law and may kindly be deleted as the provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act are not applicable…

Shri. Shankarlal Gilada vs. The Income Tax Officer

ITA/200002/2018HC Karnataka22 Jan 2020

Bench: G.NARENDAR,M.NAGAPRASANNA

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 260A

…e of apportionment of expenses comes into play as that is the principle which is engrained in Section 14-A of the Act. This is so held in Walfort Share and Stock Brokers (P) Ltd. [CIT v. Walfort Share and Stock Brokers (P) Ltd., (2010) 8 SCC 137 : (2010) 326 ITR 1] , relevant passage whereof is already reproduced above, for the sake of continuity of discussion, we would like to quote the following few lines therefrom: (SCC p. 151, paras 34 & 36) “34. … The next phrase is, “in relation to income which does not form part of total income under this Act”. It means that if an 14 income does not form par…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Syndicate Bank

ITA/97/2010HC Karnataka17 Jan 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,RAVI V HOSMANI

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 14ASection 260

…hich is in relationship with Tax exempt income under Section 14A of the Act. In support of aforesaid submissions, reliance has been placed on decision of the Supreme Court in ‘COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. WALFORT SHARE & STOCK BROKERS (P) LTD.’, (2010) 326 ITR 1, ‘GODREJ & BOYCE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LTD. VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX’, (2017) 394 ITR 449 and ‘MAXOPP INVESTMENT LTD. VS. 9 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NEW DELHI’, (2018) 402 ITR 640 (SC)’. It is fairly submitted by the learned counsel for the revenue that substantial question of law Nos.1 and 3 are interlinked. Whi…

Welspun Steel Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 3(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby ordered to be partly allowed

ITA 6759/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jan 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.6759/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) M/S. Welspun Steel Limited बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-3(3) B-Wing, Trade World, 9Th Air India Building, 19Th Vs. Floor, Kamala Mill Floor, Nariman Point, Compound, S. B. Marg, Mumbai-400021. Lower Parel, Mumbai- 400013. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacw5308G (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Farrokh Irani Revenue By: Shri Awungshi Gimson (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 02/12/2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 17/01/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 24.10.2017 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -39, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2013- 14. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

For Appellant: Shri Farrokh IraniFor Respondent: Shri Awungshi Gimson (DR)
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 14ASection 210Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.6759/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) M/s. Welspun Steel Limited बिधम/ DCIT, Central Circle-3(3) B-Wing, Trade World, 9th Air India Building, 19th Vs. Floor, Kamala Mill Floor, Nariman Point, Compound, S. B. Marg, Mumbai-400021. Lower Parel, Mumbai- 400013. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AAACW5308G (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Farrokh Irani Revenue by: Shri Awungshi Gimson (DR) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing: 0…