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 367,154 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.

Addl CIT RG 1(2), Mumbai vs. Morgan Stanley India Securities P.Ltd, Mumbai

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, then the cross objections of the assessee will become in-fructuous

ITA 114/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jan 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Jason P. Boazassessment Years: 2008-09

Section 143(2)Section 14A

…t Year 2008-09, the decision of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in Hero Cross Objection No.215 & 216/Mum/2015 M/s Morgan Stanley India Securities Pvt. Ltd. Cycles Ltd. (ITA No.331 of 2009), Walfort Shares & Stock Brokers Ltd. vs Income Tax Officer (2008) 326 ITR 1 (SC), Yatish Trading Co. Ltd. vs ACIT (2011) 122 ITD 237 (Mum. Trib.), we find no infirmity in the conclusion of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), we affirmed the same. This appeal of the Revenue is also dismissed. 4. Now, we shall take up the Cross objection of the assessee (C.O. No.215 & 216/Mum/2015). The ld. counsel for the assessee…

Addl CIT RG 1(2), Mumbai vs. Morgan Stanley India Securities P.Ltd, Mumbai

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, then the cross objections of the assessee will become in-fructuous

ITA 113/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jan 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Jason P. Boazassessment Years: 2008-09

Section 143(2)Section 14A

…t Year 2008-09, the decision of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in Hero Cross Objection No.215 & 216/Mum/2015 M/s Morgan Stanley India Securities Pvt. Ltd. Cycles Ltd. (ITA No.331 of 2009), Walfort Shares & Stock Brokers Ltd. vs Income Tax Officer (2008) 326 ITR 1 (SC), Yatish Trading Co. Ltd. vs ACIT (2011) 122 ITD 237 (Mum. Trib.), we find no infirmity in the conclusion of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), we affirmed the same. This appeal of the Revenue is also dismissed. 4. Now, we shall take up the Cross objection of the assessee (C.O. No.215 & 216/Mum/2015). The ld. counsel for the assessee…

DCIT (Ltu), New Delhi vs. M/S. Exl Service.Com (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal by the assessee as well as ofthe department are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 615/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jan 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Kuldip Singh, Jm Ita No. 302/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Exl Service.Com (India) Pvt. Ltd., Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income 414, 4Th Floor, Dlf Jasola, Tax, Large Tax Payer Unit, Tower-B, Plot No. 10 & 11, Dda New Delhi District Centre, Jasola, New Delhi-110044 (Appellant) (Respondent) Ita No. 615/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs Exl Service.Com (India) Pvt. Ltd., 414, 4Th Floor, Dlf Jasola, Tower- Tax, Circle-1 (Ltu), New Delhi-110017 B, Plot No. 10 & 11, Dda District Centre, Jasola, New Delhi-110044 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaace5174C Assessee By : Sh. Ajay Vohra, Adv. Sh. Abhishek Agarwal, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Piyush Jain, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 07.10.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.01.2017 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am:

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Piyush Jain, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 92D

…stablishing nexus of specific expenses with exempt income and that the onus was on the revenue to bring on record, the nexus between the expenses and the exempt income. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: " CIT Vs Walfort Share & Stock Brokers 326 ITR 1 (SC) " Maxopp Investment Ltd. Vs CIT 347 ITR 272 (Del.) " Minda Investments Ltd. Vs DCIT 138 TTJ 240 (Del. Trib.) " Bunge Agribusiness India P. Ltd. Vs DCIT 132 ITD 549 (Del. Trib.) " Maruti Udyog Ltd. Vs DCIT 92 ITD 119 (Del. Trib.) 32. It was further submitted that the artificial/ad-hoc disallowance u/s 14A of the Act is not permissible without a…

Exl Service.Com (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT (Ltu), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal by the assessee as well as ofthe department are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 302/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jan 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Kuldip Singh, Jm Ita No. 302/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Exl Service.Com (India) Pvt. Ltd., Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income 414, 4Th Floor, Dlf Jasola, Tax, Large Tax Payer Unit, Tower-B, Plot No. 10 & 11, Dda New Delhi District Centre, Jasola, New Delhi-110044 (Appellant) (Respondent) Ita No. 615/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs Exl Service.Com (India) Pvt. Ltd., 414, 4Th Floor, Dlf Jasola, Tower- Tax, Circle-1 (Ltu), New Delhi-110017 B, Plot No. 10 & 11, Dda District Centre, Jasola, New Delhi-110044 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaace5174C Assessee By : Sh. Ajay Vohra, Adv. Sh. Abhishek Agarwal, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Piyush Jain, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 07.10.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.01.2017 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am:

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Piyush Jain, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 92D

…stablishing nexus of specific expenses with exempt income and that the onus was on the revenue to bring on record, the nexus between the expenses and the exempt income. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: " CIT Vs Walfort Share & Stock Brokers 326 ITR 1 (SC) " Maxopp Investment Ltd. Vs CIT 347 ITR 272 (Del.) " Minda Investments Ltd. Vs DCIT 138 TTJ 240 (Del. Trib.) " Bunge Agribusiness India P. Ltd. Vs DCIT 132 ITD 549 (Del. Trib.) " Maruti Udyog Ltd. Vs DCIT 92 ITD 119 (Del. Trib.) 32. It was further submitted that the artificial/ad-hoc disallowance u/s 14A of the Act is not permissible without a…

Surendra Kumar Joshi, Kolkata vs. The ACIT, Cir-40, Kolkata

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 869/KOL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Dec 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri Aby T.Varkey, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am ] I.T.A No.869/Kol/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Surendra Kumar Joshi -Vs.- A.C.I.T., Circle-40, Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Acppj 2620 L] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Shri A.K.Tibrewal, Fca & Shri Amit Agarwal, Advocate For The Respondent : None Date Of Hearing : 09.12.2016. Date Of Pronouncement : 28.12.2016. Order

For Appellant: Shri A.K.Tibrewal, FCA &For Respondent: None
Section 14ASection 14A(2)

…assessee to earn exempt income cannot apply the formula set out in Rule 8D. Therefore by applying the principle laid down by the Hon’ble High Court and as per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Walfort Share & Stock Brokers (P)Ltd 326 ITR 1 (SC) and Maxopp Invest Ltd vs CIT 347 ITR 272 (Del) Wherein it has been held that for attracting the provision of section 14A there should be actual expenditure in relation to or pertaining to exempt income. The corollary to this is that if no expenditure is incurred in relation to the exempt income, no disallowance can be made under section 14A of…

ACIT Cen Cir 13, Mumbai vs. Rahil Agencies, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4413/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Nov 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 69A

…the instant case before us the claim was of set off of business loss against income declared during search. There is vital difference between the loss and expenses/ allowance. Hon'b1e Supreme Court in case of CIT Vs. Wallford share & Stock brokers Pvt. Ltd ( 326 ITR 1) while discussing the issue that losses incurred in mutual fund from which dividend received, cannot be considered for the purpose of section 14A of the Act and held that: "We may reiterate that one must keep in mind the conceptual difference between loss expenditure, cost of acquisition, etc. while interpreting the scheme of the Act." In view of…

Future Capital Holdings Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 8(1), Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for A

ITA 2801/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain M/S. Capital First Ltd. Add. Cit, Range – 8(1) (Formerly Future Capital Holdings Ltd.) Aayakar Bhavan India Bulls Finance Centre M.K. Road Vs. Tower 2, 15Th Floor, Senapati Mumbai 400020 Bapat Marg, Elphinston (W) Mumbai 400013 Pan – Aacck6863C Appellant Respondent Add. Cit, Range – 8(1) M/S. Capital First Ltd. (Formerly Future Capital Holdings Ltd.) Aayakar Bhavan India Bulls Finance Centre M.K. Road Vs. Tower 2, 15Th Floor, Senapati Mumbai 400020 Bapat Marg, Elphinston (W) Mumbai 400013 Pan – Aacck6863C Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Manish DesaiFor Respondent: Ms. Pooja Swaroop
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "F" Bench, Mumbai Before Shri Jason P. Boaz, Accountant Member and Shri Sandeep Gosain , Judicial Member M/s. Capital First Ltd. Add. CIT, Range – 8(1) (formerly Future Capital Holdings Ltd.) Aayakar Bhavan India Bulls Finance Centre M.K. Road Vs. Tower 2, 15th Floor, Senapati Mumbai 400020 Bapat Marg, Elphinston (W) Mumbai 400013 PAN – AACCK6863C Appellant Respondent Add. CIT, Range – 8(1) M/s. Capital First Ltd. (formerly Future Capital Holdings Ltd.) Aayakar Bhavan India Bulls Finance Centre M.K. Road Vs. Tower 2, 15th Floor, Senapati Mumbai 400020 Bapat Marg, Elphinston (…

Addl CIT RG 8(1), Mumbai vs. Future Capital Holdings Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for A

ITA 2137/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain M/S. Capital First Ltd. Add. Cit, Range – 8(1) (Formerly Future Capital Holdings Ltd.) Aayakar Bhavan India Bulls Finance Centre M.K. Road Vs. Tower 2, 15Th Floor, Senapati Mumbai 400020 Bapat Marg, Elphinston (W) Mumbai 400013 Pan – Aacck6863C Appellant Respondent Add. Cit, Range – 8(1) M/S. Capital First Ltd. (Formerly Future Capital Holdings Ltd.) Aayakar Bhavan India Bulls Finance Centre M.K. Road Vs. Tower 2, 15Th Floor, Senapati Mumbai 400020 Bapat Marg, Elphinston (W) Mumbai 400013 Pan – Aacck6863C Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Manish DesaiFor Respondent: Ms. Pooja Swaroop
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "F" Bench, Mumbai Before Shri Jason P. Boaz, Accountant Member and Shri Sandeep Gosain , Judicial Member M/s. Capital First Ltd. Add. CIT, Range – 8(1) (formerly Future Capital Holdings Ltd.) Aayakar Bhavan India Bulls Finance Centre M.K. Road Vs. Tower 2, 15th Floor, Senapati Mumbai 400020 Bapat Marg, Elphinston (W) Mumbai 400013 PAN – AACCK6863C Appellant Respondent Add. CIT, Range – 8(1) M/s. Capital First Ltd. (formerly Future Capital Holdings Ltd.) Aayakar Bhavan India Bulls Finance Centre M.K. Road Vs. Tower 2, 15th Floor, Senapati Mumbai 400020 Bapat Marg, Elphinston (…

M/S. Remfry & Sagar, Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result all the appeals of the assessee for all these

ITA 1084/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Sept 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Smt Suchitra Kamblei.T.A .No.-1561/Del/2011 (A.Y 2007-08)

Section 37

…pecial Bench of the Tribunal in Wallfort Share & Stock Brokers and then misapplying those judgments to the facts of the case. 11. Perversely ignoring the judgments of the Apex Court in Azadi Bachao Andolan (263 ITR 706), CIT vs. Walfort Shares & Stock Broker (326 ITR 1) and CIT Vs. M/s Glaxo Smith Kline Asia (P) Ltd. [Appeal (Civil) No. 18121/2007] which were specially brought to his notice. 12. Acting perversely by refusing to admit evidence in the form of valuation reports of the goodwill in ‘Remfry and Sagar’ obtained periodically by the assessee from independent experts despite the fact that these valuation…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Remfry & Sagar, New Delhi

In the result all the appeals of the assessee for all these

ITA 3669/DEL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Sept 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Smt Suchitra Kamblei.T.A .No.-1561/Del/2011 (A.Y 2007-08)

Section 37

…pecial Bench of the Tribunal in Wallfort Share & Stock Brokers and then misapplying those judgments to the facts of the case. 11. Perversely ignoring the judgments of the Apex Court in Azadi Bachao Andolan (263 ITR 706), CIT vs. Walfort Shares & Stock Broker (326 ITR 1) and CIT Vs. M/s Glaxo Smith Kline Asia (P) Ltd. [Appeal (Civil) No. 18121/2007] which were specially brought to his notice. 12. Acting perversely by refusing to admit evidence in the form of valuation reports of the goodwill in ‘Remfry and Sagar’ obtained periodically by the assessee from independent experts despite the fact that these valuation…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Remfry & Sagar, New Delhi

In the result all the appeals of the assessee for all these

ITA 3668/DEL/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Sept 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Smt Suchitra Kamblei.T.A .No.-1561/Del/2011 (A.Y 2007-08)

Section 37

…pecial Bench of the Tribunal in Wallfort Share & Stock Brokers and then misapplying those judgments to the facts of the case. 11. Perversely ignoring the judgments of the Apex Court in Azadi Bachao Andolan (263 ITR 706), CIT vs. Walfort Shares & Stock Broker (326 ITR 1) and CIT Vs. M/s Glaxo Smith Kline Asia (P) Ltd. [Appeal (Civil) No. 18121/2007] which were specially brought to his notice. 12. Acting perversely by refusing to admit evidence in the form of valuation reports of the goodwill in ‘Remfry and Sagar’ obtained periodically by the assessee from independent experts despite the fact that these valuation…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Remfry & Sagar, New Delhi

In the result all the appeals of the assessee for all these

ITA 3667/DEL/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Sept 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Smt Suchitra Kamblei.T.A .No.-1561/Del/2011 (A.Y 2007-08)

Section 37

…pecial Bench of the Tribunal in Wallfort Share & Stock Brokers and then misapplying those judgments to the facts of the case. 11. Perversely ignoring the judgments of the Apex Court in Azadi Bachao Andolan (263 ITR 706), CIT vs. Walfort Shares & Stock Broker (326 ITR 1) and CIT Vs. M/s Glaxo Smith Kline Asia (P) Ltd. [Appeal (Civil) No. 18121/2007] which were specially brought to his notice. 12. Acting perversely by refusing to admit evidence in the form of valuation reports of the goodwill in ‘Remfry and Sagar’ obtained periodically by the assessee from independent experts despite the fact that these valuation…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Remfry & Sagar, New Delhi

In the result all the appeals of the assessee for all these

ITA 3666/DEL/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Sept 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Smt Suchitra Kamblei.T.A .No.-1561/Del/2011 (A.Y 2007-08)

Section 37

…pecial Bench of the Tribunal in Wallfort Share & Stock Brokers and then misapplying those judgments to the facts of the case. 11. Perversely ignoring the judgments of the Apex Court in Azadi Bachao Andolan (263 ITR 706), CIT vs. Walfort Shares & Stock Broker (326 ITR 1) and CIT Vs. M/s Glaxo Smith Kline Asia (P) Ltd. [Appeal (Civil) No. 18121/2007] which were specially brought to his notice. 12. Acting perversely by refusing to admit evidence in the form of valuation reports of the goodwill in ‘Remfry and Sagar’ obtained periodically by the assessee from independent experts despite the fact that these valuation…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Remfry & Sagar, New Delhi

In the result all the appeals of the assessee for all these

ITA 4680/DEL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Sept 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Smt Suchitra Kamblei.T.A .No.-1561/Del/2011 (A.Y 2007-08)

Section 37

…pecial Bench of the Tribunal in Wallfort Share & Stock Brokers and then misapplying those judgments to the facts of the case. 11. Perversely ignoring the judgments of the Apex Court in Azadi Bachao Andolan (263 ITR 706), CIT vs. Walfort Shares & Stock Broker (326 ITR 1) and CIT Vs. M/s Glaxo Smith Kline Asia (P) Ltd. [Appeal (Civil) No. 18121/2007] which were specially brought to his notice. 12. Acting perversely by refusing to admit evidence in the form of valuation reports of the goodwill in ‘Remfry and Sagar’ obtained periodically by the assessee from independent experts despite the fact that these valuation…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Remfry & Sagar, Gurgaon

In the result all the appeals of the assessee for all these

ITA 367/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Sept 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Smt Suchitra Kamblei.T.A .No.-1561/Del/2011 (A.Y 2007-08)

Section 37

…pecial Bench of the Tribunal in Wallfort Share & Stock Brokers and then misapplying those judgments to the facts of the case. 11. Perversely ignoring the judgments of the Apex Court in Azadi Bachao Andolan (263 ITR 706), CIT vs. Walfort Shares & Stock Broker (326 ITR 1) and CIT Vs. M/s Glaxo Smith Kline Asia (P) Ltd. [Appeal (Civil) No. 18121/2007] which were specially brought to his notice. 12. Acting perversely by refusing to admit evidence in the form of valuation reports of the goodwill in ‘Remfry and Sagar’ obtained periodically by the assessee from independent experts despite the fact that these valuation…

M/S Remfry & Sagar, Gurgaon vs. JCIT, New Delhi

In the result all the appeals of the assessee for all these

ITA 1561/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Sept 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Smt Suchitra Kamblei.T.A .No.-1561/Del/2011 (A.Y 2007-08)

Section 37

…pecial Bench of the Tribunal in Wallfort Share & Stock Brokers and then misapplying those judgments to the facts of the case. 11. Perversely ignoring the judgments of the Apex Court in Azadi Bachao Andolan (263 ITR 706), CIT vs. Walfort Shares & Stock Broker (326 ITR 1) and CIT Vs. M/s Glaxo Smith Kline Asia (P) Ltd. [Appeal (Civil) No. 18121/2007] which were specially brought to his notice. 12. Acting perversely by refusing to admit evidence in the form of valuation reports of the goodwill in ‘Remfry and Sagar’ obtained periodically by the assessee from independent experts despite the fact that these valuation…

Abott India Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No 3472/Mum/2013 and ITA No

ITA 832/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Aug 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Respondent: Shri Morya Pratap
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32Section 32(1)(iia)Section 80

…7/2009), 4. DCIT v. Jindal Photo Ltd, (ITA No.4539/DeI.12010), 5. Yatish Trading Co. (P) Ltd. (2011) 9 taxrnan.com 164. 6. Multi Commodity Exchange of (India) Limited vs. DCIT (ITA No. 1050/M/2010 7. Cl'I' vs. Walfort Share and Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. (2010) 326 ITR 1 8. Auchtel Products Ltd. vs.. ACIT (ITA No. 3I 85/Mum/2011) The ld. CIT(A) considered the submission of the assessee whereby he observed that the assessee had made huge investments totalling to Rs. 157.23 crores against which it has earned an income of Rs. 7,89,49,266 which is not forming part of the total income of the assessee, hence, the provis…

Abbott India Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No 3472/Mum/2013 and ITA No

ITA 3472/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Aug 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Respondent: Shri Morya Pratap
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32Section 32(1)(iia)Section 80

…7/2009), 4. DCIT v. Jindal Photo Ltd, (ITA No.4539/DeI.12010), 5. Yatish Trading Co. (P) Ltd. (2011) 9 taxrnan.com 164. 6. Multi Commodity Exchange of (India) Limited vs. DCIT (ITA No. 1050/M/2010 7. Cl'I' vs. Walfort Share and Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. (2010) 326 ITR 1 8. Auchtel Products Ltd. vs.. ACIT (ITA No. 3I 85/Mum/2011) The ld. CIT(A) considered the submission of the assessee whereby he observed that the assessee had made huge investments totalling to Rs. 157.23 crores against which it has earned an income of Rs. 7,89,49,266 which is not forming part of the total income of the assessee, hence, the provis…

D.C.I.T Cir - 10, Kolkata vs. M/S Phillips Carbon Black Ltd, Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of Revenue in ITA 2123/Kol/13 and ITA

ITA 2123/KOL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Aug 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: : Shri P.M.Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri D.S.Damle, FCA, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Kalyan Nath, JCIT, Sr.DR
Section 10Section 14Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…ame opinion was expressed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd and Others v. CIT 247 CTR 162 wherein reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Walfort Share & Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd 326 ITR 1 (SC) and the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Godrej and Boyce Company Ltd vs. DCIT (328 ITR 81). The relevant portions of the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court are as under: 29. Sub-section (2) of Section 14 A of the said Act provides the manner in which the Assessing Officer is to determine the amount of expenditure in…

M/S Abr Auto Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2375/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Aug 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaabr Auto Pvt. Ltd. Vs Ito B-5, Chirag Enclave, Ward 1(2) New Delhi. New Delhi. Aadca5137C

Section 14A

…ectly or indirectly incurred in relation to exempt income, the same cannot be claimed against the income, which is taxable as it is held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Walfort Share and Stock Brokers P. Ltd. reported in 326 ITR 1 (SC) that for attracting the provisions of section 14 A, there should be proximate cause for disallowance which as relationship with the tax exempt income. The expenditure incurred in relation to the income which does not form part of total income has to be disallowed. However, it should be proximate relationship between the expenditure ITA No. 2…