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 366,470 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.

M/S Kbd Sugars & Distilleries Ltd, Bangalore vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed and the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1062/BANG/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri V. Chandrashekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar,CIT-III (D.R)
Section 14A

…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…

Yama Finance Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4144/DEL/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Apr 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2008-09 Yama Finance Ltd., Vs Income Tax Officer, B-6/5, Local Shopping Centre, Coy. Circle-18(1), New Hdfc Bank, 2Nd Floor, C.R. Building, Safdarjung Enclave, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. New Delhi. (Pan: Aaacy1847Q) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Subodh Gupta, Ca Respondent By: Shri Rajiv Ranka, Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Shri Subodh Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajiv Ranka, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 14ASection 28

…-09 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 the proximate relationship between the expenditure and t…

The Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. Smt.Anitha Sanghi

ITTA/97/2010HC Telangana21 Mar 2016

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

D.C.I.T Cir - 1, Kolkata vs. M/S A.K.G Finvest Ltd, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 1341/KOL/2013[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Mar 2016AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Prasad, JCITFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Tulsiyan, FCA
Section 143(3)Section 45Section 73

…hase of shares rather it is established that the investments were made by utilizing assessee’s own funds. For this proposition, the assessee relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Walfort Shares & Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. (2010) 326 ITR 1 (SC) wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down the following principle for invoking the provisions of section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the I. T. Rules, by holding as under: “For attracting Section 14A, there has to be a proximate cause for disallowance, which is its relationship with the tax exempt income. Pay-back or return of invest…

Viney Krishan Chaudhari, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 2669/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Feb 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2009-10 Viney Krishan Chaudhri, Vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 80/1, Whs, Kirti Nagar, Circle 16(1), New Delhi. New Delhi-110015 (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Narela, Ca Respondent By: Shri O.P.Meena, Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Narela, CAFor Respondent: Shri O.P.Meena, Sr. DR
Section 14A

…tly 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 and the i…

M/S Kbd Sugars & Distilleries Ltd vs. ACIT

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for the Assessment Years 2008-

ITA 933/BANG/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Feb 2016AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri V. Chandrashekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Neera Malhotra,CIT (D.R)
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

…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…

Pahilajrai Jaikishan, Mumbai vs. DCIT 19(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 994/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Feb 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1562/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11)

Section 14Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 37(1)Section 40

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण “सी” "यायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1562/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) A.C.I.T. 19(3), Mumbai M/s Pahilajrai Jaikishin Room No – 305, 3rd Floor, Makhija Chambers, 6th Floor, बनाम/ Piramal Chambers, Parel, 196, Turner Road, Mumbai – 400 012. Bandra (West), Mumbai- 400 050. v. आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.994/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) M/s Pahilajrai Jaikishin D.C.I.T. 19(3), Mumbai Makhija Chambers,…

Asst CIT 19(3), Mumbai vs. Pahilajrai Jaikishin, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 1562/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Feb 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1562/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11)

Section 14Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 37(1)Section 40

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण “सी” "यायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1562/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) A.C.I.T. 19(3), Mumbai M/s Pahilajrai Jaikishin Room No – 305, 3rd Floor, Makhija Chambers, 6th Floor, बनाम/ Piramal Chambers, Parel, 196, Turner Road, Mumbai – 400 012. Bandra (West), Mumbai- 400 050. v. आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.994/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) M/s Pahilajrai Jaikishin D.C.I.T. 19(3), Mumbai Makhija Chambers,…

Rajshri Productions P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT RG 16(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2049/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jan 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Assessment Year: 2009-10 Rajshri Productions (P) Ltd. Acit, Bhavana, 1St Floor, 422, Veer Range-16(1), बनाम/ Savarkar Marg, Prabhadevi, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Vs. Mumbai-400025 Mumbai-400020 "नधा"रती / Assessee राज"व / Revenue P.A. No.Aaacr4139G

Section 143(1)Section 14ASection 14A(2)Section 2

…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…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Hcl Infosystems Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, all the three Appeals filed by the Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 6420/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jan 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv. & Sh. RohitFor Respondent: Sh. T. Vasanthan, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(2)

…Rules is directed to be deleted.” 8.1 We find that Ld. CIT(A) has rightly observed that that provisions of section 14A of the I.T. Act is now well crystallized by the later decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Walfort Share & Stock Brokers : 326 ITR 1 (SC), which has been followed and applied by the Bombay High Court in the case of Gordrej Boyce & Mfg. Co. Ltd. vs. DCIT : 328 ITR 81 (Bombay) and the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd : 203 Taxman 364 (Del.). We also find that in both the case the Hon’ble High Courts have held that rule 8D of the I.T. rules is applicab…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Hcl Corporation Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, all the three Appeals filed by the Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 6419/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jan 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv. & Sh. RohitFor Respondent: Sh. T. Vasanthan, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(2)

…Rules is directed to be deleted.” 8.1 We find that Ld. CIT(A) has rightly observed that that provisions of section 14A of the I.T. Act is now well crystallized by the later decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Walfort Share & Stock Brokers : 326 ITR 1 (SC), which has been followed and applied by the Bombay High Court in the case of Gordrej Boyce & Mfg. Co. Ltd. vs. DCIT : 328 ITR 81 (Bombay) and the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd : 203 Taxman 364 (Del.). We also find that in both the case the Hon’ble High Courts have held that rule 8D of the I.T. rules is applicab…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Hcl Corporation Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, all the three Appeals filed by the Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 3924/DEL/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jan 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv. & Sh. RohitFor Respondent: Sh. T. Vasanthan, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(2)

…Rules is directed to be deleted.” 8.1 We find that Ld. CIT(A) has rightly observed that that provisions of section 14A of the I.T. Act is now well crystallized by the later decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Walfort Share & Stock Brokers : 326 ITR 1 (SC), which has been followed and applied by the Bombay High Court in the case of Gordrej Boyce & Mfg. Co. Ltd. vs. DCIT : 328 ITR 81 (Bombay) and the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd : 203 Taxman 364 (Del.). We also find that in both the case the Hon’ble High Courts have held that rule 8D of the I.T. rules is applicab…

Super Auto Forge Private Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

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

ITA 1008/CHNY/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Jan 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumarआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.1008/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2008-2009. M/S. Super Auto Forge Private Ltd, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Ts/82/2 Mettu Street, Of Income Tax, Gamapath Nagar, Company Circle Vi(4) Ekkattuthangal, Chennai Chennai 600 097. [Pan Aabcs 0459B ] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. V. Vivekanandan, IRS, CIT
Section 10ASection 10BSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 70Section 92CSection 92E

…. the findings of the Assessing Officer on Sec.14A, disallowance and applied the judicial decisions for disallowing expenses u/s.14A under Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules based on the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Wallfort Share and Stock Pvt. Ltd 41 DTR 233 and also Bombay High Court decision in the case of Godrej Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd 328 ITR 81 and confirmed the addition. In the case of loss of SEZ unit, the set off of loss are governed by Sec.70 & ITA No.1008/Mds/2014. :- 5 -: 71 of the Act and there is no specific mention in the provisions for set off of loss having SEZ unit against pr…

D.C.I.T. Cir - 8, Kolkata vs. M/S Patton Developers Pvt Ltd, Kolkata

In the result, appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed

ITA 90/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Nov 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2009-10 Dcit, Circle-8, Aayakar V/S. Patton Developers Pvt. Bhawan, 5Th Floor, P-7, Ltd., 3C, Camac Street, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata – 700 016 Kolkata-69 [Pan No.Aabct 2076 H] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 24Section 24(1)(vi)

…t 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,…

Four Dimensions Securities (I) Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 4(1), Mumbai

Appeals are disposed off in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 1011/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2005-06 M/S Four Dimensions Addl. Commissioner Of Securities (India) Ltd. Income Tax, Range-4(1), बनाम/ 29, Bank Street, 1St Floor, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Fort, Mumbai Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aaacf1734F Assessment Year: 2005-06 Addl. Commissioner Of M/S Four Dimensions Income Tax, Range-4(1), Securities (India) Ltd. बनाम/ 6Th Floor,Aayakar Bhavan, 29, Bank Street, 1St Floor, Vs. Mumbai-400020 Fort, Mumbai (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Aaacf1734F Assessment Year: 2006-07 M/S Four Dimensions Addl. Commissioner Of Securities (India) Ltd. Income Tax, Range-4(1), बनाम/ 29, Bank Street, 1St Floor, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Fort, Mumbai Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aaacf1734F

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 94(7)

…ught within three months prior of declaration of dividend, so the provision of section 94(7) is attracted. It was contended that the assessee sold within a period of nine month from the date of declaration of dividend. Reliance was placed upon the decision in 326 ITR 1 (SC), wherein, it was held that prior to insertion, this provision is not applicable. The units were explained to be stock in trade, sold in current year on a sale consideration of Rs.6.96 crores resulting into loss of Rs.92,94,105/- and total loss of both the years was claimed to be Rs.37,01,938/- and all units were sold in current year. It was po…

DCIT -4(1), Mumbai vs. Four Dimension Securities (I) Ltd, Mumbai

Appeals are disposed off in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 790/MUM/2009[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2015AY 2005-2006

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2005-06 M/S Four Dimensions Addl. Commissioner Of Securities (India) Ltd. Income Tax, Range-4(1), बनाम/ 29, Bank Street, 1St Floor, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Fort, Mumbai Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aaacf1734F Assessment Year: 2005-06 Addl. Commissioner Of M/S Four Dimensions Income Tax, Range-4(1), Securities (India) Ltd. बनाम/ 6Th Floor,Aayakar Bhavan, 29, Bank Street, 1St Floor, Vs. Mumbai-400020 Fort, Mumbai (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Aaacf1734F Assessment Year: 2006-07 M/S Four Dimensions Addl. Commissioner Of Securities (India) Ltd. Income Tax, Range-4(1), बनाम/ 29, Bank Street, 1St Floor, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Fort, Mumbai Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aaacf1734F

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 94(7)

…ught within three months prior of declaration of dividend, so the provision of section 94(7) is attracted. It was contended that the assessee sold within a period of nine month from the date of declaration of dividend. Reliance was placed upon the decision in 326 ITR 1 (SC), wherein, it was held that prior to insertion, this provision is not applicable. The units were explained to be stock in trade, sold in current year on a sale consideration of Rs.6.96 crores resulting into loss of Rs.92,94,105/- and total loss of both the years was claimed to be Rs.37,01,938/- and all units were sold in current year. It was po…

Four Dimensions Securities (India) Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 4(1), Mumbai

Appeals are disposed off in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 322/MUM/2009[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2015AY 2005-2006

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2005-06 M/S Four Dimensions Addl. Commissioner Of Securities (India) Ltd. Income Tax, Range-4(1), बनाम/ 29, Bank Street, 1St Floor, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Fort, Mumbai Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aaacf1734F Assessment Year: 2005-06 Addl. Commissioner Of M/S Four Dimensions Income Tax, Range-4(1), Securities (India) Ltd. बनाम/ 6Th Floor,Aayakar Bhavan, 29, Bank Street, 1St Floor, Vs. Mumbai-400020 Fort, Mumbai (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Aaacf1734F Assessment Year: 2006-07 M/S Four Dimensions Addl. Commissioner Of Securities (India) Ltd. Income Tax, Range-4(1), बनाम/ 29, Bank Street, 1St Floor, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Fort, Mumbai Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aaacf1734F

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 94(7)

…ught within three months prior of declaration of dividend, so the provision of section 94(7) is attracted. It was contended that the assessee sold within a period of nine month from the date of declaration of dividend. Reliance was placed upon the decision in 326 ITR 1 (SC), wherein, it was held that prior to insertion, this provision is not applicable. The units were explained to be stock in trade, sold in current year on a sale consideration of Rs.6.96 crores resulting into loss of Rs.92,94,105/- and total loss of both the years was claimed to be Rs.37,01,938/- and all units were sold in current year. It was po…

ITO, New Delhi vs. Shri Lalit Kumar Poddar, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the department is dismissed

ITA 920/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Oct 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.K. Sainiassessment Year : 2007-08

For Appellant: Smt. Prem Lata Bansal, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Parwinder Kaur, Sr. DR
Section 14Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES : SMC-II : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N.K. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year : 2007-08 ITO, Vs. Lalit Kumar Poddar, Ward-14(4), E-524, New Delhi. Greater Kailash-II, New Delhi. PAN: AHZPP0556G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Smt. Prem Lata Bansal, Sr. Advocate & Shri Prashant Kumar, Advocate Department By : Smt. Parwinder Kaur, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 20.07.2015 Date of Pronouncement : 08.10.2015 ORDER PER N.K. SAINI, AM: This is an appeal by the Department against the order dated 31.12.2014 passed by the CIT(A)-V, New Delhi. 2. The only grievance…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Svp Industries Ltd., Muzaffarnagar

Appeal of the Revenue is disposed off accordingly

ITA 6652/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Sept 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra & Ms. Suchitra Kamblei.T.A .No.-6652/Del/2013 (Assessment Year-2008-09)

Section 14ASection 16

…tisfied with the correctness of the assessee’s claim as held in case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. V. Commissioner of Income-tax, New Delhi [2011] 15 taxmann.Com 390 (Delhi HC). The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs. Walfort Share and Stock Brokers (P) Ltd. 326 ITR 1 (SC) wherein it was held that “For attracting Section 14A, there has to be proximate cause for disallowance, which is its relationship with the tax exempt income.” In case of CIT-II vs. Hero Cycles Ltd. (ITA No. 331/2009 (O&M): decided on 04.11.2009) the Punjab and Haryana High Court held that “Disallowance under Section 14A requires finding of inc…

Brigade Enterprises Ltd, Bangalore vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is treated as partly allowed

ITA 1275/BANG/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Jul 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Abraham P Georgem/S.Brigade Enterprises Ltd., 29Th & 30Th Floor, World Trade Centre, Brigade Gateway Campus, 26/1, Dr.Rajkumar Road, Rajajinagar, Bangalore-560055. … Appellant Pan: Aaacb7459F Vs. Addl. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Range-11, Bangalore. … Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Dr. P.K.Srihari, Addl.CIT(DR)
Section 10(35)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…ch connection between expenditure incurred and exempt income earned, no disallowance can be made, the assessee placed reliance on the following decisions : i) CIT V Hero Cycles (2010) 323 ITR 518 (P&H) ii) CIT V Walfort Share and Stock Brockers P. Ltd. (2010) 326 ITR 1 (SC). iii) Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. V DCIT (2010) 328 ITR 81 (Bom) 8.1.2 The Assessing Officer did not accept the above arguments put forth by the assessee and proceeded to make a disallowance under section 14A r.w. Rule 8D. Direct expenditure pertaining to exempt income was taken at NIL. Interest paid on Over draft amounting to Rs.91,93,948 wa…