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

Sonphankhi Shares & Securities P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 4(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, assessee company appeal in ITA No 7068/Mum/2012 for assessment year 2009-10 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kochar

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण “E” "यायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 7068/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) Sonpankhi Shares and ITO Ward 4(2)(2) बनाम/ Securities Private Limited Mumbai v. 12, Reyfreda , Sir M V Marg, Chakala,Andheri East Mumbai-400 093 "थायी लेखा सं./PAN : AAFCS0822E .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Assessee by Shri Nishit Gandhi Revenue by : Dr. Suman Ratnam Darsi (D.R.) सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date of Hearing : 29-07-2016 घोषणा क" त…

M/S. Tata Industries Ltd, Mumbai vs. The ITO 2(3)(3), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu, Accoutant Member & Shri Sanjay Gargtata Industries Ltd., Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward- Bombay House,24,Homi 2 (3) (3), Room No.555, Mody Street, Fort, Mumbai Aayakar Bhavan, Maharshi 400 001 Karve Road, Mumbai 400 020 Pan: Aaact 4058 L Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By Shri Dinesh Vyas, Ar Respondent By Shri Alok Johri, Dr Date Of Hearing 22-06-2016 Date Of Pronouncement 20-07-2016

…om any investment resulting into negative or Nil income by way of dividends u/s. 10(34) of the Act required no allowability of such expenditure if there. 3.4. Legal proposition a) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Walfort Share & Stock Brokers 326 ITR 1 (SC) observed that the insertion of sec.14A with retrospective effect reflects the serious attempt on the part of the 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. The Supreme Court also clearly he…

Garware Wall Ropes Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 5(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed and appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.4072/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Garware Wall Ropes Limited बनाम/ Addl. Cit 5(1) Chowpatty Chambers, Aayakar Bhavan Vs. Sandhurst Bridge, Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai - 400007

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ ‘जी’ मुंबई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI "ी बी. आर. बा"करन, लेखा सद"य, एवं "ी अमरजीत "संह, "या"यक सद"य, के सम" BEFORE SHRI B.R.BASKARAN, AM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.4072/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Garware Wall Ropes Limited बनाम/ Addl. CIT 5(1) Chowpatty Chambers, Aayakar Bhavan Vs. Sandhurst Bridge, Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai - 400007 आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.4018/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Deputy Commissioner of बनाम/ Garware Wall Ropes Income Tax 5(1) Limited Vs. Room No.568, 5th Floor…

DCIT 5(1), Mumbai vs. Garware Wall Ropes Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed and appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.4072/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Garware Wall Ropes Limited बनाम/ Addl. Cit 5(1) Chowpatty Chambers, Aayakar Bhavan Vs. Sandhurst Bridge, Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai - 400007

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ ‘जी’ मुंबई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI "ी बी. आर. बा"करन, लेखा सद"य, एवं "ी अमरजीत "संह, "या"यक सद"य, के सम" BEFORE SHRI B.R.BASKARAN, AM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.4072/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Garware Wall Ropes Limited बनाम/ Addl. CIT 5(1) Chowpatty Chambers, Aayakar Bhavan Vs. Sandhurst Bridge, Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai - 400007 आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.4018/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Deputy Commissioner of बनाम/ Garware Wall Ropes Income Tax 5(1) Limited Vs. Room No.568, 5th Floor…

DCIT (OSD) RG 10(1), Mumbai vs. Godrej Agrovet Ltd, Mumbai

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendraassessment Years:2008-09

…Ltd. (supra) Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court while dealing with the issue of disallowance u/s 14A and application of Rule 8D has recorded the principles as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Walfort Share and Stock Brokers P. Ltd. [2010] (326 ITR 1,) in para 31 as under:- (a) “The mandate of section 14A is to prevent claims for deduction of expenditure in relation to income which does not form part of the total income. (b) Section 14A(1) is enacted to ensure that only expenses incurred in respect of earning taxable income are allowed; (c) The principle of apportionment of expenses is widened…

DCIT 10(2), Mumbai vs. Godrej Agrovet Ltd, Mumbai

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendraassessment Years:2008-09

…Ltd. (supra) Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court while dealing with the issue of disallowance u/s 14A and application of Rule 8D has recorded the principles as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Walfort Share and Stock Brokers P. Ltd. [2010] (326 ITR 1,) in para 31 as under:- (a) “The mandate of section 14A is to prevent claims for deduction of expenditure in relation to income which does not form part of the total income. (b) Section 14A(1) is enacted to ensure that only expenses incurred in respect of earning taxable income are allowed; (c) The principle of apportionment of expenses is widened…

Khandelwal Laboratories P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT 6, Mumbai

In the result, both the assessee’s appeals are allowed in part in terms indicated herein above

…f section 94(8) will not apply to the shares. The assesse is free to carry out tax planning within the provisions of law. A similar argument was raised by the department before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs. Walfort Shares and Stock brokers Ltd (326 ITR 1) wherein, even after considering the decision in the case of McDowell & Co. Ltd., it was held by Supreme Court that mere tax planning without any motive to avoid taxes is not a colourable device. 36. In view of the above, we do not find any merit in CIT’s direction for applying provision of section 94(7) and 94(8) of the IT Act for disallowing loss…

Khandelwal Laboratories P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT 6, Mumbai

In the result, both the assessee’s appeals are allowed in part in terms indicated herein above

…f section 94(8) will not apply to the shares. The assesse is free to carry out tax planning within the provisions of law. A similar argument was raised by the department before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs. Walfort Shares and Stock brokers Ltd (326 ITR 1) wherein, even after considering the decision in the case of McDowell & Co. Ltd., it was held by Supreme Court that mere tax planning without any motive to avoid taxes is not a colourable device. 36. In view of the above, we do not find any merit in CIT’s direction for applying provision of section 94(7) and 94(8) of the IT Act for disallowing loss…

Rahil Impex P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 13, Mumbai

Bench: S/Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Ramlal Negi (Jm)

…upreme Court in the case of Mcdowell Ltd (supra) has been explained by the Hon’ble Apex Court in many of its subsequent decisions. The Ld A.R submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in the case of CIT Vs. Walfort Share and Stock Brokers P Ltd (2010)(326 ITR 1) that the better use of the provisions of the Act cannot be called “abuse of law”. In that case, the assessee had purchased mutual fund units just before the record date fixed for declaration of dividend, since the dividend income was exempt. After declaration of the dividend, the net asset value of the mutual fund units would go down and upon sell…

Saurashtra Fuels P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 3(3), Mumbai

In the result, assessee appeal in ITA No 7274/Mum/2012 for assessment year 2009-10 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kochar

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण “E” "यायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 7273-74/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08 & 2009-10) Saurashtra Fuels Private Deputy Commissioner of बनाम/ Limited, C/o M/s Kucheria & Income Tax, circle 3(3) , v. Associates, 59, Jolly Maker 6 th Floor, Aayakar No.-2 Nariman Point, Bhawan, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400021 "थायी लेखा सं./PAN : AAACS7271G .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Assessee by Shri B.V.Jhaveri Revenue by : Shri Ri…

ACIT Cen Cir 13, Mumbai vs. Asian Star Diamonds Iternational P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, both appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita No.4411/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2011-2012) Acit, Central Circle-13, Room Vs. M/S ‘A’ Star Exports, No.1103, 11Th Floor Old Cgo 114/116, Mittal Court, C- Wing, 11Th Floor, Nariman Building (Annex.) M.K.Road, Mumbai-400020 Point, Mumbai-400021 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aabfv 4508 K (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. & आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita No.4412/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2011-2012) Acit, Central Circle-13, Room Vs. M/S Asian Star Diamonds No.1103, 11Th Floor Old Cgo International Pvt. Ltd., Building (Annex.) M.K.Road, 114, Mittal Court, C- Wing, 11Th Floor, Nariman Mumbai-400020 Point, Mumbai-400021 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaacp 4726 H (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

…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, can not 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…

ACIT Cen Cir 13, Mumbai vs. 'A' Star Exports, Mumbai

In the result, both appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita No.4411/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2011-2012) Acit, Central Circle-13, Room Vs. M/S ‘A’ Star Exports, No.1103, 11Th Floor Old Cgo 114/116, Mittal Court, C- Wing, 11Th Floor, Nariman Building (Annex.) M.K.Road, Mumbai-400020 Point, Mumbai-400021 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aabfv 4508 K (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. & आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita No.4412/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2011-2012) Acit, Central Circle-13, Room Vs. M/S Asian Star Diamonds No.1103, 11Th Floor Old Cgo International Pvt. Ltd., Building (Annex.) M.K.Road, 114, Mittal Court, C- Wing, 11Th Floor, Nariman Mumbai-400020 Point, Mumbai-400021 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaacp 4726 H (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

…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, can not 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…

Vishesh H Parekh, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 20(3), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm Shri Vishesh H. Parekh, 601-A, Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Lok Darshan Military Road, Marol, Income Tax 20(3), Andheri (E), Mumbai 400 059 Mumbai Pan: Agvpp 2722P Appellant .. Respondent

…d the AO cannot simply ignore the plea of the assessee that there is hardly any expenditure incurred for the purpose of earning dividend income. The learned AR further relied upon the decision in the case of (i) CIT Vs Walfort Share & Stock Brokers P. Ltd. [326 ITR 1 (SC)] rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, (ii) CIT Vs Shapoorji Pallonji reported in 318 ITR 417 (Bom.) 4. On the other hand, the learned DR appearing on behalf of the Revenue submitted that although the reply was submitted by the assessee to the effect that he has not incurred any expenditure for the purpose of earning exempt income but, the…

Cni Research Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 5(1), Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendraassessment Year: 2010-11 M/S Cni Research Ltd. Dcit-5(1), A/12 Gokul Arcade, Mumbai बनाम/ Sahar Road, Vile Parle (E), Vs. Mumbai-400057 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aaccc2842H

…therefore, no disallowance is to be made. Our attention was invited to pages 27 and 30 of the paper book by placing reliance upon the decision in the case of Iqbal M. Chagla (67 SOT 123)(Mum), Godrej & Boyce 328 ITR 81(Bom.), Walfort Share & Stock Broker 326 ITR 1 (SC), Maxoop Investment Ltd. 347 ITR 272 (Del.) and Hero Cycles Ltd. 323 ITR 518 (P & H). On the other hand, Shri V. K. Agarwal, ld. DR, defended the disallowance/addition made by the ld. Assessing Officer and confirmed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal). 3 M/s CNI Research Ltd. 2.1. We have considered the rival submissions and per…