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.

Bajaj Electricals Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 2(1), Mumbai

ITA 111/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon'Ble Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

Section 115Section 14ASection 250

…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 v. 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 this…

Bajaj Electricals Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 2(1), Mumbai

Accordingly we remit the impugned issue back to the AO with similar directions. The grounds raised by the assessee in this regard are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 110/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jul 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Shri Rakesh Ranjan-CIT-DR &
Section 115Section 14ASection 250

…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 v. Walfort Share and Stock Brokers (P) Ltd. [2010] 326 ITR 1 31 ITA 4172/M/13-5749-5750/M/15-110- 111/M/16 Bajaj Electricals Limited .... 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 apportion…

DCIT 2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Bajaj Electricals Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 5750/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon'Ble Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh S. Joshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Ranjan-CIT-DR &
Section 115Section 14ASection 250

…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 v. Walfort Share and Stock Brokers (P) Ltd. [2010] 326 ITR 1 30 ITA 4172/M/13-5749-5750/M/15-110- 111/M/16 Bajaj Electricals Limited 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…

DCIT 2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Bajaj Electricals Ltd, Mumbai

Accordingly we remit the impugned issue back to the AO with similar directions. The grounds raised by the assessee in this regard are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5749/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jul 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Shri Rakesh Ranjan-CIT-DR &
Section 115Section 14ASection 250

…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 v. Walfort Share and Stock Brokers (P) Ltd. [2010] 326 ITR 1 31 ITA 4172/M/13-5749-5750/M/15-110- 111/M/16 Bajaj Electricals Limited .... 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 apportion…

Bajaj Electricals Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 2(1), Mumbai

Accordingly we remit the impugned issue back to the AO with similar directions. The grounds raised by the assessee in this regard are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4172/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jul 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Shri Rakesh Ranjan-CIT-DR &
Section 115Section 14ASection 250

…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 v. Walfort Share and Stock Brokers (P) Ltd. [2010] 326 ITR 1 31 ITA 4172/M/13-5749-5750/M/15-110- 111/M/16 Bajaj Electricals Limited .... 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 apportion…

Isl Consulting Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Circle-2(1)(1) ( Previously DCIT, Cen. Circ. 1(3), Chennai), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 218/AHD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member), SHRI T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri S N Divatia & Shri Samir VoraFor Respondent: Shri Ravindra, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 218/Ahd/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13) ISL Consulting Limited बनाम / DCIT 501, 5th Floor, Abhijeet-II, Circle-2(1)(1), Above Standard Chartered Ahmedabad Vs. Bank, Near Mithakhali Six (Previously DCIT, Cent. Roads, Ahmedabad – Cir. 1(3), Chennai-34) 380009 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AABCI1994F (Appellant) .. (Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant by : Shri S N Divatia & Shri Samir Vora, A.Rs. ""यथ" क" ओर से/R…

ACIT Cental Circle 8(2) Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Subhkam Ventures (I) Private Limited, Mumbai

Appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the C

ITA 5657/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Shri Mahendra Bishnoi
Section 10(35)Section 132Section 250Section 94(7)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JM & MS PADMAVATHY S, AM I.T.A. No. 5657/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year: 2015-16) ACIT, Central Circle-8(2), Subhkam Ventures (I) Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 658, 6th Floor, 16th Floor, Maker Chamber, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. IV 222, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400021. PAN: AAACW1624M Appellant) : Respondent) C.O. 276/Mum/2024 in I.T.A. No. 5657/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year: 2015-16) Subhkam Ventures (I) Pvt. Ltd. ACIT, Central Circle-8(2), 16th Floor, Maker Chamber, Pratishtha Bhavan, 3rd & 4th Floor, IV 222, Nariman Point, Vs. 10…

ACIT Central Circle 8(2) Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Subhkam Ventures (I) Private Limited, Mumbai

Appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the C

ITA 5622/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Shri Mahendra Bishnoi
Section 10(35)Section 132Section 250Section 94(7)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JM & MS PADMAVATHY S, AM I.T.A. No. 5657/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year: 2015-16) ACIT, Central Circle-8(2), Subhkam Ventures (I) Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 658, 6th Floor, 16th Floor, Maker Chamber, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. IV 222, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400021. PAN: AAACW1624M Appellant) : Respondent) C.O. 276/Mum/2024 in I.T.A. No. 5657/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year: 2015-16) Subhkam Ventures (I) Pvt. Ltd. ACIT, Central Circle-8(2), 16th Floor, Maker Chamber, Pratishtha Bhavan, 3rd & 4th Floor, IV 222, Nariman Point, Vs. 10…

ACIT Central Circle 8(2) Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Subhkam Ventures (I) Private Limited, Mumbai

Appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the C

ITA 5620/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Shri Mahendra Bishnoi
Section 10(35)Section 132Section 250Section 94(7)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JM & MS PADMAVATHY S, AM I.T.A. No. 5657/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year: 2015-16) ACIT, Central Circle-8(2), Subhkam Ventures (I) Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 658, 6th Floor, 16th Floor, Maker Chamber, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. IV 222, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400021. PAN: AAACW1624M Appellant) : Respondent) C.O. 276/Mum/2024 in I.T.A. No. 5657/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year: 2015-16) Subhkam Ventures (I) Pvt. Ltd. ACIT, Central Circle-8(2), 16th Floor, Maker Chamber, Pratishtha Bhavan, 3rd & 4th Floor, IV 222, Nariman Point, Vs. 10…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Cognizant Technology Solutions India Private Limited, Chennai

ITA 1262/CHNY/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 May 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon'Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1193, 1194, 1205, 1206 & 1207/Chny/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) Cognizant Technology Solutions Vs The Asst. Commissioner India Pvt. Ltd., Of Income Tax, No.5/535, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Central Circle 1(1), Old Mahabalipuram Road, Chennai. Chennai - 600 096. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Pan: Aaacd 3312M (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1262, 1263, 1264, 1265 & 1266/Chny/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) The Asst. Commissioner Of Vs Cognizant Technology Income Tax, Solutions India Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle 1(1), No.5/535, Okkiam Chennai. Thoraipakkam, Old Mahabalipuram Road, Chennai - 600 096. Pan: Aaacd 3312M (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) निधारिती की ओर से/Assessee By राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit & Ms. Anitha, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11.03.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 16.05.2025 - 2 -

For Respondent: Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate
Section 10ASection 14ASection 40Section 9(1)

…ion 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 v. 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 provisio…

Cognizant Technology Solutions India Private Limited, Chennai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle 1(1), Chennai

ITA 1207/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1193, 1194, 1205, 1206 & 1207/Chny/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) Vs Cognizant Technology Solutions The Asst. Commissioner India Pvt. Ltd., Of Income Tax, No.5/535, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Central Circle 1(1), Old Mahabalipuram Road, Chennai. Chennai – 600 096. Pan : Aaacd 3312M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1262, 1263, 1264, 1265 & 1266/Chny/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) Vs The Asst. Commissioner Of Cognizant Technology Income Tax, Solutions India Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle 1(1), No.5/535, Okkiam Chennai. Thoraipakkam, Old Mahabalipuram Road, Chennai – 600 096. Pan : Aaacd 3312M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT
Section 10ASection 14ASection 40Section 9(1)

…ion 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 v. 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 provisi…

Cognizant Technology Solutions India Private Limited, Chennai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle 1(1), Chennai

ITA 1193/CHNY/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 May 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1193, 1194, 1205, 1206 & 1207/Chny/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) Vs Cognizant Technology Solutions The Asst. Commissioner India Pvt. Ltd., Of Income Tax, No.5/535, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Central Circle 1(1), Old Mahabalipuram Road, Chennai. Chennai – 600 096. Pan : Aaacd 3312M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1262, 1263, 1264, 1265 & 1266/Chny/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) Vs The Asst. Commissioner Of Cognizant Technology Income Tax, Solutions India Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle 1(1), No.5/535, Okkiam Chennai. Thoraipakkam, Old Mahabalipuram Road, Chennai – 600 096. Pan : Aaacd 3312M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT
Section 10ASection 14ASection 40Section 9(1)

…ion 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 v. 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 provisi…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Income Tax Department vs. Rashesh Manhar Bhansali, Andheri East

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5107/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), MS PADMAVATHY S (Accountant Member)

Section 10(35)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…ne and the same shall be disallowed only when the record date falls within the period as stipulated u/s.94(7). This proposition has been upheld by the Hon’ble 9 Rasesh Manhar Bhansali Supreme Court in the case of Walfort Share &Stock Brokers (P) Ltd. (2010) 41 DTR 233 (SC) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:- “The real objection of the Department appears to be that the assessee is getting tax-free dividend; that at the same time it is claiming loss on the sale of the units; that the assessee had purposely and in a planned manner entered into a pre-meditated transaction of buying and selling units y…

ACIT, Range-I, Lucknow vs. M/S Apco Infratech Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow

ITA 454/LKW/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow02 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80I

…on 14A. Several landmark judgments have reinforced the applicability of Section 14A to interest expenses incurred on funds used for making investments generating exempt income. Some of them are as under: CIT v. Walfort Share and Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. (2010) 326 ITR 1 (SC): The Supreme Court held that Section 14A applies irrespective of whether the assessee has earned exempt income during the relevant year. The Court emphasized that the primary concern of the legislature was to disallow expenditure incurred to earn exempt income, regardless of whether the exempt income was received or not. Maxopp Investment Ltd.…

ACIT, Range-I, Lucknow vs. M/S Apco Infratech Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow

ITA 453/LKW/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow02 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80I

…on 14A. Several landmark judgments have reinforced the applicability of Section 14A to interest expenses incurred on funds used for making investments generating exempt income. Some of them are as under: CIT v. Walfort Share and Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. (2010) 326 ITR 1 (SC): The Supreme Court held that Section 14A applies irrespective of whether the assessee has earned exempt income during the relevant year. The Court emphasized that the primary concern of the legislature was to disallow expenditure incurred to earn exempt income, regardless of whether the exempt income was received or not. Maxopp Investment Ltd.…

M/S. Apco Infratech Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow vs. ACIT-I, Lucknow

In the result, appeals vide I

ITA 357/LKW/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow02 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80I

…14A. Several landmark judgments have reinforced the applicability of Section 14A to interest expenses incurred on funds used for making investments generating exempt income. Some of them are as under: CIT v. Walfort Share and Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. (2010) 326 ITR 1 (SC): The Supreme Court held that Section 14A applies irrespective of whether the assessee has earned exempt income during the relevant year. The Court emphasized that the primary concern of the legislature was to disallow expenditure incurred to earn exempt income, regardless of whether the exempt income was received or not. Maxopp Investment Ltd…

Lycos Internet Limited, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(1), Hyderabad

ITA 1769/HYD/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice- & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, СА
Section 14ASection 249(4)(a)Section 263Section 36(1)(va)

…d in deleting the disallowance u/s 14A of Rs.3,89,56,740/-. 3. The CIT(A) erred in ignoring CBDT's Circular No.5 of 2014 dated 11.02.2014. 4. The CIT(A) erred in ignoring the Supreme Court decision in the case of CIT Vs Walfort Share of Stock Brokers Pvt Ltd (326 ITR 1), wherein it was held that the mandate of section 14A was to curb the practice of claiming 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 exempt income without making any apportionment of expenses incurred in relation to exempt income 5. The CIT(A) erred i…

Agrasen Engineering Industries Private Limited, Jaipur vs. National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1085/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Him.

For Appellant: Sh. Vijay Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-Sr. DR
Section 111ASection 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…isallowed by itself in computation of Total Income (PB page 2), for making the investments or earning the income there from and the Ld. A.O. could not disprove to this fact. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT V/s Walfort Shares & Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd (326 ITR 1)( Case Law Paper Book page 1-11) it was held that for attracting section 14A, there has to be a proximate cause for disallowance which is its relationship with the tax-exempt income. 6. The ld. A.O. on the basis of surmises and conjecture hold that the possibility of incurring certain expenditure under head administrative expenditure for earning di…

Income Tax Officer, Piramal Chambers vs. Dibya Trading Co LLP, Mumbai, Maharashtra

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed and cross- objection of the assessee is also dismissed

ITA 4330/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2015-16 Income Tax Officer Dibya Trading Co. Llp

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawal & Shri Jay BhahsaliFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr. DR
Section 10(35)Section 250

…EBI. However, the said scheme is still continuing as on the present date with no restrictions imposed by SEBI on investing in the said scheme. Relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of CIT vs.Walfort Share & Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd. (326 ITR 1), has held that by inserting section 94(7) with effect from 1-4-2002, Parliament has not treated dividend stripping transactions as sham or bogus and that by applying section 94(7) in a case for assessment year(s) falling after 01-04-2002, loss to be ignored would be only to extent of dividend received and not entire loss. Thus, losses over and abo…

Orchid Pharma Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

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

ITA 73/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.73/Chny/2017 निर्ाारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri B.Ramakrishnan, FCA & ShriFor Respondent: Shri A.Sasikumar, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 92A(2)(i)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, ’डी’ न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH: CHENNAI श्री एबी टी. वर्की, न्यायिर्क सदस्य एवं श्री अयिताभ शुक्ला, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE SHRI ABY T VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No.73/Chny/2017 निर्ाारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2012-13 M/s. Orchid Pharma Ltd. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, (Formerly Orchid Chemicals and Company Circle-5(1), Pharmaceuticals Ltd.), Chennai-34 No.313, Orchid Towers, Valluvarkottam High Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-34. [PAN: AAACO0402B] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appel…