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.

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Hcl Perot Systmes Ltd

The appeals stand disposed of as above

ITA - 77 / 2009HC Delhi18 Nov 2011
For Appellant: Mr Ajay Vohra with Ms Kavita Jha, Ms Akanksha Aggarwal andFor Respondent: Mr Sanjeev Sabharwal with Ms P. L. Bansal and Ms Sonia Mathur

…, 1962 and will accordingly, apply in relation to the assessment year 1962-63 and subsequent assessment years." 2011:DHC:5797-DB ITA 687/09 & Ors Page 18 of 38 16. As observed by the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Walfort Share and Stock Brokers P Ltd: 326 ITR 1 (SC), the insertion of section 14 A with retrospective effect reflects 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 said act against the taxable income. The Supreme Court further observed as un…

Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi IV vs. Icra Ltd

The appeals stand disposed of as above

ITA - 683 / 2008HC Delhi18 Nov 2011
For Appellant: Mr Ajay Vohra with Ms Kavita Jha, Ms Akanksha Aggarwal andFor Respondent: Mr Sanjeev Sabharwal with Ms P. L. Bansal and Ms Sonia Mathur

…, 1962 and will accordingly, apply in relation to the assessment year 1962-63 and subsequent assessment years." 2011:DHC:5797-DB ITA 687/09 & Ors Page 18 of 38 16. As observed by the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Walfort Share and Stock Brokers P Ltd: 326 ITR 1 (SC), the insertion of section 14 A with retrospective effect reflects 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 said act against the taxable income. The Supreme Court further observed as un…

M/S Eicher Goodearth Ltd

The appeals stand disposed of as above

ITA/416/2010HC Delhi18 Nov 2011
For Appellant: Mr Ajay Vohra with Ms Kavita Jha, Ms Akanksha Aggarwal andFor Respondent: Mr Sanjeev Sabharwal with Ms P. L. Bansal and Ms Sonia Mathur

…, 1962 and will accordingly, apply in relation to the assessment year 1962-63 and subsequent assessment years." 2011:DHC:5797-DB ITA 687/09 & Ors Page 18 of 38 16. As observed by the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Walfort Share and Stock Brokers P Ltd: 326 ITR 1 (SC), the insertion of section 14 A with retrospective effect reflects 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 said act against the taxable income. The Supreme Court further observed as un…

M/S Eicher Goodearth Ltd

The appeals stand disposed of as above

ITA/139/2009HC Delhi18 Nov 2011
For Appellant: Mr Ajay Vohra with Ms Kavita Jha, Ms Akanksha Aggarwal andFor Respondent: Mr Sanjeev Sabharwal with Ms P. L. Bansal and Ms Sonia Mathur

…, 1962 and will accordingly, apply in relation to the assessment year 1962-63 and subsequent assessment years." 2011:DHC:5797-DB ITA 687/09 & Ors Page 18 of 38 16. As observed by the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Walfort Share and Stock Brokers P Ltd: 326 ITR 1 (SC), the insertion of section 14 A with retrospective effect reflects 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 said act against the taxable income. The Supreme Court further observed as un…

M/S Eicher Goodearth Ltd

The appeals stand disposed of as above

ITA/958/2009HC Delhi18 Nov 2011
For Appellant: Mr Ajay Vohra with Ms Kavita Jha, Ms Akanksha Aggarwal andFor Respondent: Mr Sanjeev Sabharwal with Ms P. L. Bansal and Ms Sonia Mathur

…, 1962 and will accordingly, apply in relation to the assessment year 1962-63 and subsequent assessment years." 2011:DHC:5797-DB ITA 687/09 & Ors Page 18 of 38 16. As observed by the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Walfort Share and Stock Brokers P Ltd: 326 ITR 1 (SC), the insertion of section 14 A with retrospective effect reflects 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 said act against the taxable income. The Supreme Court further observed as un…

M/S Eicher Goodearth Ltd

The appeals stand disposed of as above

ITA/936/2009HC Delhi18 Nov 2011
For Appellant: Mr Ajay Vohra with Ms Kavita Jha, Ms Akanksha Aggarwal andFor Respondent: Mr Sanjeev Sabharwal with Ms P. L. Bansal and Ms Sonia Mathur

…, 1962 and will accordingly, apply in relation to the assessment year 1962-63 and subsequent assessment years." 2011:DHC:5797-DB ITA 687/09 & Ors Page 18 of 38 16. As observed by the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Walfort Share and Stock Brokers P Ltd: 326 ITR 1 (SC), the insertion of section 14 A with retrospective effect reflects 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 said act against the taxable income. The Supreme Court further observed as un…

M/S Eicher Goodearth Ltd

The appeals stand disposed of as above

ITA/1096/2009HC Delhi18 Nov 2011
For Appellant: Mr Ajay Vohra with Ms Kavita Jha, Ms Akanksha Aggarwal andFor Respondent: Mr Sanjeev Sabharwal with Ms P. L. Bansal and Ms Sonia Mathur

…, 1962 and will accordingly, apply in relation to the assessment year 1962-63 and subsequent assessment years." 2011:DHC:5797-DB ITA 687/09 & Ors Page 18 of 38 16. As observed by the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Walfort Share and Stock Brokers P Ltd: 326 ITR 1 (SC), the insertion of section 14 A with retrospective effect reflects 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 said act against the taxable income. The Supreme Court further observed as un…

M/S Eicher Goodearth Ltd

The appeals stand disposed of as above

ITA/856/2009HC Delhi18 Nov 2011
For Appellant: Mr Ajay Vohra with Ms Kavita Jha, Ms Akanksha Aggarwal andFor Respondent: Mr Sanjeev Sabharwal with Ms P. L. Bansal and Ms Sonia Mathur

…, 1962 and will accordingly, apply in relation to the assessment year 1962-63 and subsequent assessment years." 2011:DHC:5797-DB ITA 687/09 & Ors Page 18 of 38 16. As observed by the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Walfort Share and Stock Brokers P Ltd: 326 ITR 1 (SC), the insertion of section 14 A with retrospective effect reflects 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 said act against the taxable income. The Supreme Court further observed as un…

M/S Eicher Goodearth Ltd

The appeals stand disposed of as above

ITA/98/2009HC Delhi18 Nov 2011
For Appellant: Mr Ajay Vohra with Ms Kavita Jha, Ms Akanksha Aggarwal andFor Respondent: Mr Sanjeev Sabharwal with Ms P. L. Bansal and Ms Sonia Mathur

…, 1962 and will accordingly, apply in relation to the assessment year 1962-63 and subsequent assessment years." 2011:DHC:5797-DB ITA 687/09 & Ors Page 18 of 38 16. As observed by the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Walfort Share and Stock Brokers P Ltd: 326 ITR 1 (SC), the insertion of section 14 A with retrospective effect reflects 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 said act against the taxable income. The Supreme Court further observed as un…

M/S Eicher Goodearth Ltd

The appeals stand disposed of as above

ITA/263/2010HC Delhi18 Nov 2011
For Appellant: Mr Ajay Vohra with Ms Kavita Jha, Ms Akanksha Aggarwal andFor Respondent: Mr Sanjeev Sabharwal with Ms P. L. Bansal and Ms Sonia Mathur

…, 1962 and will accordingly, apply in relation to the assessment year 1962-63 and subsequent assessment years." 2011:DHC:5797-DB ITA 687/09 & Ors Page 18 of 38 16. As observed by the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Walfort Share and Stock Brokers P Ltd: 326 ITR 1 (SC), the insertion of section 14 A with retrospective effect reflects 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 said act against the taxable income. The Supreme Court further observed as un…

M/S Eicher Goodearth Ltd

The appeals stand disposed of as above

ITA/1114/2009HC Delhi18 Nov 2011
For Appellant: Mr Ajay Vohra with Ms Kavita Jha, Ms Akanksha Aggarwal andFor Respondent: Mr Sanjeev Sabharwal with Ms P. L. Bansal and Ms Sonia Mathur

…, 1962 and will accordingly, apply in relation to the assessment year 1962-63 and subsequent assessment years." 2011:DHC:5797-DB ITA 687/09 & Ors Page 18 of 38 16. As observed by the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Walfort Share and Stock Brokers P Ltd: 326 ITR 1 (SC), the insertion of section 14 A with retrospective effect reflects 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 said act against the taxable income. The Supreme Court further observed as un…

M/S Eicher Goodearth Ltd

The appeals stand disposed of as above

ITA/1060/2009HC Delhi18 Nov 2011
For Appellant: Mr Ajay Vohra with Ms Kavita Jha, Ms Akanksha Aggarwal andFor Respondent: Mr Sanjeev Sabharwal with Ms P. L. Bansal and Ms Sonia Mathur

…, 1962 and will accordingly, apply in relation to the assessment year 1962-63 and subsequent assessment years." 2011:DHC:5797-DB ITA 687/09 & Ors Page 18 of 38 16. As observed by the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Walfort Share and Stock Brokers P Ltd: 326 ITR 1 (SC), the insertion of section 14 A with retrospective effect reflects 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 said act against the taxable income. The Supreme Court further observed as un…

M/S Eicher Goodearth Ltd

The appeals stand disposed of as above

ITA/683/2008HC Delhi18 Nov 2011
For Appellant: Mr Ajay Vohra with Ms Kavita Jha, Ms Akanksha Aggarwal andFor Respondent: Mr Sanjeev Sabharwal with Ms P. L. Bansal and Ms Sonia Mathur

…, 1962 and will accordingly, apply in relation to the assessment year 1962-63 and subsequent assessment years." 2011:DHC:5797-DB ITA 687/09 & Ors Page 18 of 38 16. As observed by the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Walfort Share and Stock Brokers P Ltd: 326 ITR 1 (SC), the insertion of section 14 A with retrospective effect reflects 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 said act against the taxable income. The Supreme Court further observed as un…

M/S Eicher Goodearth Ltd

The appeals stand disposed of as above

ITA/57/2008HC Delhi18 Nov 2011
For Appellant: Mr Ajay Vohra with Ms Kavita Jha, Ms Akanksha Aggarwal andFor Respondent: Mr Sanjeev Sabharwal with Ms P. L. Bansal and Ms Sonia Mathur

…, 1962 and will accordingly, apply in relation to the assessment year 1962-63 and subsequent assessment years." 2011:DHC:5797-DB ITA 687/09 & Ors Page 18 of 38 16. As observed by the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Walfort Share and Stock Brokers P Ltd: 326 ITR 1 (SC), the insertion of section 14 A with retrospective effect reflects 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 said act against the taxable income. The Supreme Court further observed as un…

M/S Eicher Goodearth Ltd

The appeals stand disposed of as above

ITA/702/2008HC Delhi18 Nov 2011
For Appellant: Mr Ajay Vohra with Ms Kavita Jha, Ms Akanksha Aggarwal andFor Respondent: Mr Sanjeev Sabharwal with Ms P. L. Bansal and Ms Sonia Mathur

…, 1962 and will accordingly, apply in relation to the assessment year 1962-63 and subsequent assessment years." 2011:DHC:5797-DB ITA 687/09 & Ors Page 18 of 38 16. As observed by the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Walfort Share and Stock Brokers P Ltd: 326 ITR 1 (SC), the insertion of section 14 A with retrospective effect reflects 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 said act against the taxable income. The Supreme Court further observed as un…

M/S Eicher Goodearth Ltd

The appeals stand disposed of as above

ITA/112/2010HC Delhi18 Nov 2011
For Appellant: Mr Ajay Vohra with Ms Kavita Jha, Ms Akanksha Aggarwal andFor Respondent: Mr Sanjeev Sabharwal with Ms P. L. Bansal and Ms Sonia Mathur

…, 1962 and will accordingly, apply in relation to the assessment year 1962-63 and subsequent assessment years." 2011:DHC:5797-DB ITA 687/09 & Ors Page 18 of 38 16. As observed by the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Walfort Share and Stock Brokers P Ltd: 326 ITR 1 (SC), the insertion of section 14 A with retrospective effect reflects 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 said act against the taxable income. The Supreme Court further observed as un…

M/S Eicher Goodearth Ltd

The appeals stand disposed of as above

ITA/932/2009HC Delhi18 Nov 2011
For Appellant: Mr Ajay Vohra with Ms Kavita Jha, Ms Akanksha Aggarwal andFor Respondent: Mr Sanjeev Sabharwal with Ms P. L. Bansal and Ms Sonia Mathur

…, 1962 and will accordingly, apply in relation to the assessment year 1962-63 and subsequent assessment years." 2011:DHC:5797-DB ITA 687/09 & Ors Page 18 of 38 16. As observed by the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Walfort Share and Stock Brokers P Ltd: 326 ITR 1 (SC), the insertion of section 14 A with retrospective effect reflects 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 said act against the taxable income. The Supreme Court further observed as un…

M/S Eicher Goodearth Ltd

The appeals stand disposed of as above

ITA/217/2009HC Delhi18 Nov 2011
For Appellant: Mr Ajay Vohra with Ms Kavita Jha, Ms Akanksha Aggarwal andFor Respondent: Mr Sanjeev Sabharwal with Ms P. L. Bansal and Ms Sonia Mathur

…, 1962 and will accordingly, apply in relation to the assessment year 1962-63 and subsequent assessment years." 2011:DHC:5797-DB ITA 687/09 & Ors Page 18 of 38 16. As observed by the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Walfort Share and Stock Brokers P Ltd: 326 ITR 1 (SC), the insertion of section 14 A with retrospective effect reflects 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 said act against the taxable income. The Supreme Court further observed as un…

M/S Eicher Goodearth Ltd

The appeals stand disposed of as above

ITA/687/2009HC Delhi18 Nov 2011
For Appellant: Mr Ajay Vohra with Ms Kavita Jha, Ms Akanksha Aggarwal andFor Respondent: Mr Sanjeev Sabharwal with Ms P. L. Bansal and Ms Sonia Mathur

…, 1962 and will accordingly, apply in relation to the assessment year 1962-63 and subsequent assessment years." 2011:DHC:5797-DB ITA 687/09 & Ors Page 18 of 38 16. As observed by the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Walfort Share and Stock Brokers P Ltd: 326 ITR 1 (SC), the insertion of section 14 A with retrospective effect reflects 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 said act against the taxable income. The Supreme Court further observed as un…

M/S Eicher Goodearth Ltd

The appeals stand disposed of as above

ITA/389/2010HC Delhi18 Nov 2011
For Appellant: Mr Ajay Vohra with Ms Kavita Jha, Ms Akanksha Aggarwal andFor Respondent: Mr Sanjeev Sabharwal with Ms P. L. Bansal and Ms Sonia Mathur

…, 1962 and will accordingly, apply in relation to the assessment year 1962-63 and subsequent assessment years." 2011:DHC:5797-DB ITA 687/09 & Ors Page 18 of 38 16. As observed by the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Walfort Share and Stock Brokers P Ltd: 326 ITR 1 (SC), the insertion of section 14 A with retrospective effect reflects 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 said act against the taxable income. The Supreme Court further observed as un…