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 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 367,164 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 14A Section 143(3)Section 94(7)Section 10(35)Section 133A Section 148 Section 148A Section 48

Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 14a(1)strategic investment section 14a(2)section 10(34)disallowance under section 14a disallowance u/s 14a section 14a section 80ia mercantile system of accounting section 115jb section 115j revenue expenditure

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

Lally Motors India Pvt. Ltd, Jalandhar vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Jalandhar

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 218/ASR/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar12 Apr 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 218(Asr)/2017 Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Sh. Sameer Bhatia (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Bhawani Shankar (D. R.)

Section 119Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

…dum explaining the provisions of Finance Bill, 2001 (introducing section 14A) as well as the Notes to the Clauses presented along with the said Bill, has been noted with approval by the Hon'ble Apex Court in CIT v. Walfort Share & Stock Brokers P. Ltd. [2010] 326 ITR 1 (SC), holding as under: (pgs. 15-16) ‘The insertion of section 14A with retrospective effect is the serious attempt on the part of Parliament not to allow deduction in respect of any expenditure incurred by the assessee in relation to income, which does not form part of the total income under the Act against the taxable income (see Circular No. 14…

ACIT, Circle-8(2), Kolkata vs. M/S Patton Developers Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1945/KOL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Apr 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri P.M.Jagtap, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm ] Assessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Arindam Bhattcharjee, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri Lokesh Kumar Mishra, AR

Section 10(38)Section 24

…ct also provides that assessee can convert its capital assets in stock-in-trade. The Ld. CIT(A) has made reference to the following judgments :- i) ACIT v. Jehangir T. Nagree (2008) 23 SOT 512 (Mumbai) ii) CIT v. Walfort Share And Stock Brokers P. Ltd. (2010) 326 ITR 1 (SC) iii) Union of India v. Azadi Bachao Andolan (2003) 263 ITR 796 (SC) 10. Now aggrieved with the order of Ld. CIT(A), Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 11. We have heard rival parties and perused the materials available on record. Before us Ld. DR supported the order of AO whereas Ld. AR supported the order of Ld. CIT(A). In this case,…

I.T.O., Ward-12(3), Kolkata vs. M/S Jhabua Power Ltd., Kolkata

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

ITA 2077/KOL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Mar 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.2077/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Ito, Wd-12(3), Kolkata Vs. M/S. Jhabua Power Ltd. Chowringhee Square, 7Th P-7, “Krebe House”, 6B, Pretoria St., Floor, Kolkata- 700069. Kolkata – 700 069. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabck 3364 R (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Arindam Bhattacharjee, Addl. CIT(DR)For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Bhattacharya, FCA

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D”, BENCH KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI A.T. VARKEY, JM & DR. A.L.SAINI, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No.2077/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) ITO, Wd-12(3), Kolkata Vs. M/s. Jhabua Power Ltd. Chowringhee Square, 7th P-7, “Krebe House”, 6B, Pretoria St., Floor, Kolkata- 700069. Kolkata – 700 069. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. : AABCK 3364 R (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by :Shri Arindam Bhattacharjee, Addl. CIT(DR) Respondent by :Shri Sanjay Bhattacharya, FCA सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date of Hearing : 17/01/2018 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement : 23/03/2018 आदेश / O R D…

The Dy. CIT-1(2), Raipur (Cg) vs. M/S. Saumya Mining Ltd., Raipur (Cg)

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 150/BIL/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur31 Jan 2018AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Praveen Jain, ARFor Respondent: Shri P.K.Mishra, CITDR

Section 14ASection 194C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR BEFORE:SHRI N.S.SAINI, AM & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE,JM DCIT-1(2), Raipur vs M/s Saumya Mining Limited, Nathani Building, Shastri Chowk, Raipur(C.G.) PAN No. : AADCS 5050 J (Appellant) .. tnednopseR Revenue by : Shri P.K.Mishra, CITDR Assessee by : Shri Praveen Jain, AR Date of Hearing : 17/01/2018 Date of Pronouncement 31/01/2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri N.S.Saini, AM: This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of the CIT(A), Raipur, dated 07.08.2013 for the assessment year 2010-2011. 2. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of…

Vasantha Traders, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-8(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the assessee appeal is allowed

ITA 343/HYD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Jan 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt P. Madhavi Devi & Shri B. Ramakotaiahassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Vasantha Traders, Vs. Dcit, Circle-8(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan- Aahfv8178M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri T. Chaitanya Kumar Revenue By : Smt. Suman Malik Date Of Hearing : 22-01-2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 24-01-2018 Order Per P. Madhavi Devi, J.M.: This Is Assessee Appeal For The A.Y 2012-13, Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-5, Hyderabad Dated 07-12-2016 In This Assessment Year The Assessee Is Aggrieved By The Order Of The Cit(A) In Confirming The Disallowance Made U/S 14A(2) Of The It Act R.W.R 8D Of The It Rules.

For Appellant: Shri T. Chaitanya KumarFor Respondent: Smt. Suman Malik

Section 115Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(2)

…THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH “A”, HYDERABAD BEFORE SMT P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B. RAMAKOTAIAH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/s Vasantha Traders, vs. DCIT, Circle-8(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. PAN- AAHFV8178M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri T. Chaitanya Kumar Revenue by : Smt. Suman Malik Date of hearing : 22-01-2018 Date of pronouncement : 24-01-2018 ORDER PER P. MADHAVI DEVI, J.M.: This is assessee appeal for the A.Y 2012-13, against the order of the CIT(A)-5, Hyderabad dated 07-12-2016 in this assessment year the assessee is aggrieved by the or…

ACIT 3(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Edelweiss Trading & Holdings Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby ordered to be dismissed

ITA 4259/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jan 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.4259/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Acit-3(1)(2) बिधम/ M/S. Edelweiss Trading & Room No. 607, 6Th Floor, Holding Ltd. (Formerly Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- Edelweiss Commodities 400020 Ltd.) 1, Edelweiss House, Off, Cst Road, Kalina, Santacruz (E) Mumbai- 400098 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabce3819M (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Saurabh Deshpande (Dr) Assessee By: Shri Rajan Vora सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 26.10.2017 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 17. 01.2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 16.03.2016 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 8, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2011- 12. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds:- “1. "On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit{A) Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.12,74,59,362/- Made By Assessing Officer On Account Of Mark To Market Loss A.Y.2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Rajan VoraFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Deshpande (DR)

Section 10(34)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 14A(2)

…n shares held as stock in trade. 5.3.6 A reference is made to the decision of Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Yatish Trading Co. (P) Ltd. v. ACiT [2011] 129 ITD 237 (Mum), wherein relying on the decision of CIT v. Waifort Share & Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd. [2010] 326 ITR 1 (SC) and followed by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. DCIT[2010] 234 CTR 001 (Bom), it was held as under: "In case of dealer in shares and securities the primary object and intent ion for acquisition of the shares is to earn profit on trading of shares. The income on sale and purchase of the shares of a d…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Shri Hari Investment, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the revenue for both the assessment years are dismissed

ITA 6062/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jan 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri SS Rana, CIT DR

Section 10

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “G”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 6062 and 6063/Del/2014 (Assessment Year: 2010-11and 2011-12) ACIT, Vs. Shri Hari Investment, B-47, 2nd Floor, Shiv Mahal, Circle-31(1), New Delhi Connaught Place, New Delhi PAN: ABEFS8112L (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue by : Shri SS Rana, CIT DR Assessee by: None Date of Hearing 24/10/2017 Date of pronouncement 02/01/2018 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A. M. 1. These are the appeals filed by the Revenue against the order of the ld CIT(A)-XXVI, New Delhi d…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Shri Hari Investment, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the revenue for both the assessment years are dismissed

ITA 6063/DEL/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jan 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri SS Rana, CIT DR

Section 10

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Kota vs. M/S Jainco Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Kota

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 755/JPR/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Dec 2017AY 2014-15

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Verma (Addl.CIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 14ASection 2(24)(x)

…providing that no deduction 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 CIT v. Walfort Share & Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd. [2010] 326 ITR 1/192 Taxman 211. '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.…

Shri Sharad Shyamsunder Rungta, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-11, Ahmedabad

Appeal is allowed

ITA 3431/AHD/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Dec 2017AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri G. C. Pipara, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. K. Singh, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…It is submitted that the AO while making the impugned disallowance on the basis of his discussion in the assessment order has conveniently ignored the binding decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Walfort Share & Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd. 326 ITR 1 (SC). The AO has thus proceeded to discuss the issue on various observations which prima facie appears to be typed in a mechanical manner without proper consideration and appreciation of the particular facts of the appellant's case and hence not in consonance with the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above cited case. 3. Without pr…

M/S Value Point Systems Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

In the result Ground.7 of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 376/BANG/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Dec 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. A. K. Garodia & Shri. Lalit Kumari.T.A No.376/Bang/2017 (Assessment Year : 2011-12)

For Appellant: Shri. B. T. Shetty, CAFor Respondent: Shri. M. K. Biju, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…revious year'. Further, 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 CIT v. Walfort Share & Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd. [2010] 326 ITR 1/192 Taxman 211 (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. Cons…

Triway Forwarders Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 932/CHNY/2017[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Nov 2017AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Abraham P.George & Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.932/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2012-2013. M/S. Triway Forwarders Pvt. Limited, Vs The Assistant Commissioner Of No.14, Jaffer Street, Income Tax, Mannady, Company Circle Iii(2) Chennai 600 001. Chennai.

For Appellant: Shri. N. Devanathan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. M. Palanichamy, IRS, JCIT

Section 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…

Auto Shell Cast Pvt Ltd., Coimbatore vs. DCIT, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 931/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Nov 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Abraham P.George & Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.931/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2013-2014

For Respondent: Shri M. Palanichamy, JCIT

Section 14ASection 43B

M/S.Hll Lifecare Ltd(Previously Known As Hindustan Latex Ltd), Trivandrum vs. The ACIT, Trivandrum

ITA 32/COCH/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Nov 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Abraham P.George, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri. Govind ShastriFor Respondent: Sri. A.Dhanaraj, Sr.DR

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri Abraham P.George, AM & Shri George George K, JM ITA No.30/Coch/2016 : Asst.Year 2009-2010 ITA No.31/Coch/2016 : Asst.Year 2010-2011 ITA No.32/Coch/2016 : Asst.Year 2011-2012 M/s.HLL Lifecare Limited The Assistant (Previously known as Vs. Commissioner of Income- Hindustan Latex Limited) tax, Circle 1(1) C/o.K.Venkatachalam Aiyer Trivandrum. & Co., CAs, PB No.12 Trivandrum 695 001. PAN : AAACH5598K. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sri. Govind Shastri Respondent by : Sri. A.Dhanaraj, Sr.DR Date of Pronouncement : 23.11..2017 Date of…

M/S.Hll Lifecare Ltd(Previously Known As Hindustan Latex Ltd), Trivandrum vs. The ACIT, Trivandrum

ITA 31/COCH/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Abraham P.George, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri. Govind ShastriFor Respondent: Sri. A.Dhanaraj, Sr.DR

M/S.Hll Lifecare Ltd(Previously Known As Hindustan Latex Ltd), Trivandrum vs. The ACIT, Trivandrum

ITA 30/COCH/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Nov 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Abraham P.George, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri. Govind ShastriFor Respondent: Sri. A.Dhanaraj, Sr.DR

Munjal Showa Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 1030/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Nov 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT DR

Section 143Section 144CSection 14ASection 92C

…s. In this case this presumption was established considering the 16 finding of fact both by the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal. The interest was deductible.” 34. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs. Walfort Share & Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd. [2010] 326 ITR 1 (SC) held that basic principle of taxation is to tax net income and this principle applies for the purpose of section 14A and expenses towards non-taxable income must be excluded. 35. In Godrej and Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. V. DCIT - 328 ITR 81, Hon’ble Bombay High Court also held that in case the assessee has sufficient surplus fund and the AO has…

Asst. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bangalore vs. M/S.Kausthubha Project Private Limited, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1310/BANG/2016[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Nov 2017AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri. Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. M. K. Biju, JCIT

Section 14A

…s not ITA.1310/Bang/2016 Page - 10 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 CIT v. Walfort Share & Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd. [2010] 326 ITR 1/192 Taxman 211 (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. Cons…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Milkfood Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 1227/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Nov 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D. Manmohan, Vp & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील सं अपील सं सं./I.T.A. No.1227/Del/2016 सं (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) वष" Assistant Commissioner Of Milkfood Limited 5Th Floor Income Tax Central Circle-4 Bhandari House बनाम नाम नाम/ नाम (Erstwhile Cc-25) 91, Nehru Place Vs. Room No. 331, Ara Centre Delhi Jhandewalan Extension New Delhi. ःथायी लेखा ःथायी लेखा सं सं./जीआइआर जीआइआर सं सं./Pan/Gir No. Aadcm-5913-B ःथायी ःथायी लेखा लेखा सं सं जीआइआर जीआइआर सं सं (अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" /Appellant) अपीलाथ" (ू"यथ" ू"यथ" ू"यथ" / Respondent) ू"यथ" : Revenue By : Shri Pranav Kumar, Ld. Sr.Dr Assessee By : Shri R.S.Singhvi, Ca सुनवाई क" सुनवाई क" तार"ख तार"ख / सुनवाई सुनवाई क" क" तार"ख तार"ख : 16/11/2017 Date Of Hearing घोषणा घोषणा क" घोषणा घोषणा क" क" तार"ख क" तार"ख तार"ख / तार"ख : 17/11/2017 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri R.S.Singhvi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Pranav Kumar, Ld. Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…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…

Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part for statistical purposes

ITA 6021/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Nov 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri K.N. Charry

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 14ASection 35DSection 43BSection 92C

…regard to accounts of assessee, reaches a finding, that assessee has incurred expenses, having proximate nexus with earning of exempt dividend income. According to the Ld. AR in the absence of such finding, as is held in CIT vs. Walfort Share & Stock Brokers: 326 ITR 1 (SC), Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. DCIT : 394 ITR 449 (SC) – affirming Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. CIT: 328 ITR 81 (Bom.), Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. CIT: 347 ITR 272 (Del.), and Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Hero Cycles: 323 ITR 518, assessing officer does not have power to compute disallowance under section 14A as per…