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.

How many judgments cite CIT v. Walfort Share & Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd.?

543 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Walfort Share & Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd. (326 ITR 1), spanning 2011 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Walfort Share & Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 14A, Section 143(3), Section 94(7), Section 10(35), Section 133A, Section 148.

CIT v. Walfort Share & Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd. (326 ITR 1)

Ntpc Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 4754/DEL/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Apr 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Pramita M. Biswas, CIT DR

Section 14ASection 37(1)Section 80I

…acts and circumstances. Thus, the disallowance made by the AO invoking Rule 8D of the IT Rules, 1962 in the AY 2007-08, is not justified. 11.1. Moreover, Hon'ble Supreme Court in their decision dated 6.7.2010 in CIT v. Walfort Share & Stock Brokers (P) Ltd., 326 ITR 1, inter alia, observed that for attracting section 14A of the Act there has to be a proximate cause for disallowance, which is its relationship with the tax exempt income. Hon'ble Apex Court observed in the context of provisions sec. 14A of the Act in the following terms: "17. The insertion of section 14A with retrospective effect is the serious at…

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

Appeal is allowed

ITA 4183/DEL/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Apr 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Pramita M. Biswas, CIT DR

Section 14ASection 37(1)Section 80I

…acts and circumstances. Thus, the disallowance made by the AO invoking Rule 8D of the IT Rules, 1962 in the AY 2007-08, is not justified. 11.1. Moreover, Hon'ble Supreme Court in their decision dated 6.7.2010 in CIT v. Walfort Share & Stock Brokers (P) Ltd., 326 ITR 1, inter alia, observed that for attracting section 14A of the Act there has to be a proximate cause for disallowance, which is its relationship with the tax exempt income. Hon'ble Apex Court observed in the context of provisions sec. 14A of the Act in the following terms: "17. The insertion of section 14A with retrospective effect is the serious at…

Shri Vinay Bhasin, New Delhi vs. JCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5822/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Apr 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2011-12 Vs Mr. Vinay Bhasin Jcit C-14, South Extension, Range-37 Part-Ii, New Delhi. New Delhi.

Section 143(1)Section 14A

…object of section 14A is to disallow the direct and indirect expenditure incurred in relation to income which does not form part of the total income. AO referred to judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT 8 vs Walfort Share and Stock Brokers P. Ltd. 326 ITR 1. The AO also noted that AO has to adopt a reasonable basis or method consistent with all the relevant facts and circumstances for making a disallowance. The assessee has not provided any separate amount for earning of exempt income. The assessee has made very heavy investments for earning exempt income throughout the year. The AO, therefore, follow…

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Sunil Haripant Pophale, Nashik

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 448/PUN/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Apr 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.322/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Mr. Sunil Haripant Pophale, C/O Vadivarhe Specialty Chemicals Ltd., Gat No.204, Nashik Mumbai Highway, Vadivarhe, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Nashik – 422403 …. Pan: Aahpp4573G Vs. The Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Range – 2, Nashik आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.448/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Circle – 2, Nashik …. Vs. Mr. Sunil Haripant Pophale, C/O Vadivarhe Specialty Chemicals Ltd., Gat No.204, Nashik Mumbai Highway, Vadivarhe, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Nashik – 422403 Pan: Aahpp4573G आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.301/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Smt. Sunita Ajay Ramnathkar, 22, Parijat, 95 Marine Drive, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Mumbai – 400002 …. Pan: Aafpr1193J Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle – 2, Nashik

For Appellant: Shri Sunil PathakFor Respondent: Shri S.B. Prasad, CIT

Section 143(3)

…cer (supra) relied upon by the learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue applies to an artificial transaction and not a real transaction. 25. In another celebrated decision, the Apex Court in CIT Vs. Walfort Share and Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd. (2010) 326 ITR 1 (SC) considering the case of a company, which had purchased the shares before dividend and received the dividend thereafter, which was tax free, and later on sold the shares ex- dividend and claimed capital loss on sale of shares, had held that even assuming that the company had made use of provisions of section 10(33) of the Act, such use could no…

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Smt. Sunita Ajay Ramnathkar, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 447/PUN/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Apr 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.322/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Mr. Sunil Haripant Pophale, C/O Vadivarhe Specialty Chemicals Ltd., Gat No.204, Nashik Mumbai Highway, Vadivarhe, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Nashik – 422403 …. Pan: Aahpp4573G Vs. The Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Range – 2, Nashik आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.448/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Circle – 2, Nashik …. Vs. Mr. Sunil Haripant Pophale, C/O Vadivarhe Specialty Chemicals Ltd., Gat No.204, Nashik Mumbai Highway, Vadivarhe, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Nashik – 422403 Pan: Aahpp4573G आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.301/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Smt. Sunita Ajay Ramnathkar, 22, Parijat, 95 Marine Drive, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Mumbai – 400002 …. Pan: Aafpr1193J Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle – 2, Nashik

For Appellant: Shri Sunil PathakFor Respondent: Shri S.B. Prasad, CIT

Section 143(3)

…cer (supra) relied upon by the learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue applies to an artificial transaction and not a real transaction. 25. In another celebrated decision, the Apex Court in CIT Vs. Walfort Share and Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd. (2010) 326 ITR 1 (SC) considering the case of a company, which had purchased the shares before dividend and received the dividend thereafter, which was tax free, and later on sold the shares ex- dividend and claimed capital loss on sale of shares, had held that even assuming that the company had made use of provisions of section 10(33) of the Act, such use could no…

Sunil Haripant Pophale, Nashik vs. Joint Commissioner of Inocme-Tax

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 322/PUN/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Apr 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.322/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Mr. Sunil Haripant Pophale, C/O Vadivarhe Specialty Chemicals Ltd., Gat No.204, Nashik Mumbai Highway, Vadivarhe, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Nashik – 422403 …. Pan: Aahpp4573G Vs. The Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Range – 2, Nashik आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.448/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Circle – 2, Nashik …. Vs. Mr. Sunil Haripant Pophale, C/O Vadivarhe Specialty Chemicals Ltd., Gat No.204, Nashik Mumbai Highway, Vadivarhe, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Nashik – 422403 Pan: Aahpp4573G आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.301/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Smt. Sunita Ajay Ramnathkar, 22, Parijat, 95 Marine Drive, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Mumbai – 400002 …. Pan: Aafpr1193J Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle – 2, Nashik

For Appellant: Shri Sunil PathakFor Respondent: Shri S.B. Prasad, CIT

Section 143(3)

…cer (supra) relied upon by the learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue applies to an artificial transaction and not a real transaction. 25. In another celebrated decision, the Apex Court in CIT Vs. Walfort Share and Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd. (2010) 326 ITR 1 (SC) considering the case of a company, which had purchased the shares before dividend and received the dividend thereafter, which was tax free, and later on sold the shares ex- dividend and claimed capital loss on sale of shares, had held that even assuming that the company had made use of provisions of section 10(33) of the Act, such use could no…

Smt. Sunita Ajay Ramnathkar, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 301/PUN/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Apr 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.322/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Mr. Sunil Haripant Pophale, C/O Vadivarhe Specialty Chemicals Ltd., Gat No.204, Nashik Mumbai Highway, Vadivarhe, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Nashik – 422403 …. Pan: Aahpp4573G Vs. The Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Range – 2, Nashik आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.448/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Circle – 2, Nashik …. Vs. Mr. Sunil Haripant Pophale, C/O Vadivarhe Specialty Chemicals Ltd., Gat No.204, Nashik Mumbai Highway, Vadivarhe, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Nashik – 422403 Pan: Aahpp4573G आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.301/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Smt. Sunita Ajay Ramnathkar, 22, Parijat, 95 Marine Drive, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Mumbai – 400002 …. Pan: Aafpr1193J Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle – 2, Nashik

For Appellant: Shri Sunil PathakFor Respondent: Shri S.B. Prasad, CIT

Section 143(3)

…cer (supra) relied upon by the learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue applies to an artificial transaction and not a real transaction. 25. In another celebrated decision, the Apex Court in CIT Vs. Walfort Share and Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd. (2010) 326 ITR 1 (SC) considering the case of a company, which had purchased the shares before dividend and received the dividend thereafter, which was tax free, and later on sold the shares ex- dividend and claimed capital loss on sale of shares, had held that even assuming that the company had made use of provisions of section 10(33) of the Act, such use could no…

The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1), Visakhapatnam vs. Sarita Synthetics & Industries Limited, Rajam

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 489/VIZ/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam27 Mar 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.488 & 489/Viz/2018 (ननधधारण वर्ा/ Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-2014 Respectively) Dy.Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S Sarita Synthetics & Circle-4(1) Industries Ltd. Visakhapatnam D.No.11-8-120 Anthakapalli Village Srikakulam [Pan :Aadcs4025R] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Smt. Suman Malik, Dr प्रत्यधथी की ओर से/ Respondent By : None

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Malik, DRFor Respondent: None

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 40

…t 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…

The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1), Visakhapatnam vs. Sarita Synthetics & Industries Limited, Srikakulam

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 488/VIZ/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam27 Mar 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.488 & 489/Viz/2018 (ननधधारण वर्ा/ Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-2014 Respectively) Dy.Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S Sarita Synthetics & Circle-4(1) Industries Ltd. Visakhapatnam D.No.11-8-120 Anthakapalli Village Srikakulam [Pan :Aadcs4025R] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Smt. Suman Malik, Dr प्रत्यधथी की ओर से/ Respondent By : None

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Malik, DRFor Respondent: None

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 40

…t 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…

Altus Learning Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 2(1), New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2031/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Mar 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Sh. Prashant Maharishi

Section 10(34)Section 14A

…n without considering the arguments made by 3 the appellant and reproduced in the impugned appellant order. (ix) Confirming the addition ignoring, in particular, the binding decisions of Hon’ble Apex Court in CIT(A) Vs. Walfort Share & Stock broker Pvt. Ltd. 326 ITR 1, and of Jurisdictional High Court of Delhi in H. T. Media Ltd. Vs. Pr. CIT(A)[2017] 85 taxmann.com 113 (Delhi). (x) Confirming the addition by ignoring the decisions of other High Court and Tribunal, relied by the appellant to the effect that (i) if Ld. A.O has not recorded satisfaction about the claim of the expenditure having regard to the accou…

Dy CIT, Visakhapatnam vs. Kotu Sarath Kumar`, Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 496/VIZ/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam20 Mar 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: ShriG.V.N. Hari–AdvocateFor Respondent: ShriD.K. Sonawal–Sr.DR

Section 132Section 153A

…t 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…

Kotu Anasuya (Late), Visakhapatnam vs. DCIT, Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 494/VIZ/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam20 Mar 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: ShriG.V.N. Hari–AdvocateFor Respondent: ShriD.K. Sonawal–Sr.DR

Section 132Section 153A

…t 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…

Kotu Sarat Kumar, Visakhapatnam vs. Dy.CIT., Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 493/VIZ/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam20 Mar 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: ShriG.V.N. Hari–AdvocateFor Respondent: ShriD.K. Sonawal–Sr.DR

Section 132Section 153A

…t 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…

ACIT, Moradabad vs. M/S. Jubilant Organosyes Ltd., Uttar Pradesh

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 4975/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Mar 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt Beena A. Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri R.M. Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J. K. Mishra, CIT DR

Section 115JSection 43(1)

…AO to establish a direct or indirect nexus between expenditure alleged to have been incurred for earning exempt income in order to invoke section 14A of Act. He referred judicial precedents of CIT., Mumbai vs. M/s. Walfort Share & Stock Brokers P. Ltd. [2010] 326 ITR 1 (SC). Thus, a vague assertion by Ld. AO that Appellant has not considered indirect expenses is not sufficient and cannot automatically trigger Rule 8D of Rules without satisfying provisions of section 14A(1) of Act. It is submitted before Hon‟ble Bench that sub-section (2) of section 14A of Act provides that requirement of Assessing Officer embarki…

ACIT, Moradabad vs. M/S Jubliant Organosys Ltd., Uttar Pradesh

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 2596/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Mar 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt Beena A. Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri R.M. Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J. K. Mishra, CIT DR

Section 115JSection 43(1)

…AO to establish a direct or indirect nexus between expenditure alleged to have been incurred for earning exempt income in order to invoke section 14A of Act. He referred judicial precedents of CIT., Mumbai vs. M/s. Walfort Share & Stock Brokers P. Ltd. [2010] 326 ITR 1 (SC). Thus, a vague assertion by Ld. AO that Appellant has not considered indirect expenses is not sufficient and cannot automatically trigger Rule 8D of Rules without satisfying provisions of section 14A(1) of Act. It is submitted before Hon‟ble Bench that sub-section (2) of section 14A of Act provides that requirement of Assessing Officer embarki…

Jubilant Organosys Ltd., Noida vs. Addl. CIT, Moradabad

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 2497/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Mar 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt Beena A. Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri R.M. Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J. K. Mishra, CIT DR

Section 115JSection 43(1)

…AO to establish a direct or indirect nexus between expenditure alleged to have been incurred for earning exempt income in order to invoke section 14A of Act. He referred judicial precedents of CIT., Mumbai vs. M/s. Walfort Share & Stock Brokers P. Ltd. [2010] 326 ITR 1 (SC). Thus, a vague assertion by Ld. AO that Appellant has not considered indirect expenses is not sufficient and cannot automatically trigger Rule 8D of Rules without satisfying provisions of section 14A(1) of Act. It is submitted before Hon‟ble Bench that sub-section (2) of section 14A of Act provides that requirement of Assessing Officer embarki…

Vikas Globalone Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 26(2), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2498/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Mar 2019AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri Piyush KamalFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT-D.R

Section 115JSection 37Section 80I

…ge investment of Rs.477.77 lacs in the firm. Thus, there is a fall in investment in assessment year under appeal. The Ld. CIT(A), however, following the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Walfort Share & Stock Brokers P. Ltd., (2010) 326 ITR 1 (SC) and Judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd., vs. DCIT (2010) 328 ITR 81 (Bom.) dismissed this ground of appeal of assessee. 11. Learned Counsel for the Assessee reiterated the submissions made before the authorities below and submitted that no investment was made in the assessment year under…

The Dy. DIT (Exemption), Circle-1, Ahmedabad vs. Friends of Wwb India, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the revenue and cross objection of the assesseee both are dismissed

ITA 1608/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Mar 2019AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay R. Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Dev, Sr. D.R

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)

…cial benediction of the Constitutional Bench in India, notwithstanding the temporary turbulence created in the wake of McDowell's case [1985] 154 ITR 148 (SC). 13. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in another case of CIT vs. Walfort Share and Stock Brokers P. Ltd. in 326 ITR 1 has made the following observations:- “The real objection of the Department appears to be that the assessee is getting tax-free dividend ; that at the same time it is claiming loss on the sale of the units ; that the assessee had purposely and in a planned manner entered into a pre-meditated transaction of buying and selling units yielding exempted…

Ramya Constructions Limited, Vijayawada vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Vijayawada

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 341/VIZ/2018[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam06 Feb 2019AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Blem/S. Ramya Constructions, Vs. Dcit, Circle-2(1), C/O T. Chaitanyakumar, Adv., Vijayawada. Flat No. 102, Gouri Apartment, Urdu Lane, Himayath Nagar, Hyderabad. Pan No. Aadcr 1165 K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri T. Chaitanya Kumar– AdvFor Respondent: Shri D.V. Subba Rao – Sr.DR

Section 14A

…t 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…

Meena Zarda Products Pvt. Ltd., Bhubaneswar vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 343/CTK/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack06 Feb 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Gargआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.343/Ctk/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2015-2016) Meena Zarda Products (P) Ltd. Vs. Ito, Ward-1(1), S-3/85, Mancheswar Industrial Bhubaneswar Estate, Bhubaneswar-751010 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaecm 3120 G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri G. Naik, Advocate & Shri Rajat Kar, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Subhendu Dutta सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 04/02/2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 06/02/2019 आदेश / O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A)-1, Dated 04.06.2018 Passed In First Appeal No.0087/17-18 For The Assessment Year 2015-2016. 2. The Sole Ground Raised By The Assessee Reads As Follows :- “2. For That Learned Cit(A) Erred In Law As Well As Fact In Confirming The Disallowance Of Rs.4,53,064/- U/S.14A Of The I.T.Act, 1961 Without Considering The Submissions Of The Appellant From Its Proper Prospective On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case.” 3. Ld. Ar Submitted That In The Similar Set Of Facts & Circumstances For A.Y.2014-2015, The Ao Made Addition, Which Was Confirmed By The Ld. Cit(A) But The This Bench Of The Itat In Ita No.45/Ctk/2018, Order Dated 02.08.2018, Allowed The Appeal Of The Assessee & Directed The Ao To Delete The Entire Amount Of Impugned Addition Made U/S.14A Of The Act By 2 Following The Decision Of Hon’Ble Madras High Court In The Case Of Cit Vs.

For Appellant: Shri G. Naik, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subhendu Dutta

Section 14Section 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 v. 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 provisio…

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

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

Also referred to as

Also reported as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

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

Ntpc Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

Shri Vinay Bhasin, New Delhi vs. JCIT, New Delhi

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Sunil Haripant Pophale, Nashik

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Smt. Sunita Ajay Ramnathkar, Mumbai

Sunil Haripant Pophale, Nashik vs. Joint Commissioner of Inocme-Tax

Smt. Sunita Ajay Ramnathkar, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax

The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1), Visakhapatnam vs. Sarita Synthetics & Industries Limited, Rajam

The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1), Visakhapatnam vs. Sarita Synthetics & Industries Limited, Srikakulam

Altus Learning Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 2(1), New Delhi

Dy CIT, Visakhapatnam vs. Kotu Sarath Kumar`, Visakhapatnam

Kotu Anasuya (Late), Visakhapatnam vs. DCIT, Visakhapatnam

Kotu Sarat Kumar, Visakhapatnam vs. Dy.CIT., Visakhapatnam

ACIT, Moradabad vs. M/S. Jubilant Organosyes Ltd., Uttar Pradesh

ACIT, Moradabad vs. M/S Jubliant Organosys Ltd., Uttar Pradesh

Jubilant Organosys Ltd., Noida vs. Addl. CIT, Moradabad

Vikas Globalone Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 26(2), New Delhi

The Dy. DIT (Exemption), Circle-1, Ahmedabad vs. Friends of Wwb India, Ahmedabad

Ramya Constructions Limited, Vijayawada vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Vijayawada

Meena Zarda Products Pvt. Ltd., Bhubaneswar vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Bhubaneswar