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.

The Federal Bank Ltd, Aluva vs. The ACIT, Kochi

In the result, appeals of the Assessee and revenue for AY 2008-09 to 2010-

ITA 745/COCH/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin12 Dec 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. S. Padmavathy

For Appellant: Shri Rajesekharan, CA and Shri K.Gopi, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J. M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR, Cochin
Section 147Section 14ASection 154

…e total income and is exempt from tax. Hence, the expenditure incurred in acquiring those shares will have to be apportioned, based on the facts of each case, between taxable and non-taxable income as held in the case of Walfort Share and Stock Brokers P Ltd. 326 ITR 1 (SC). The ruling seems to suggest that expenditure needs to be apportioned between these two sources, though it is silent on the manner thereon. It was submitted that the Delhi Bench of the ITAT in the case of Punjab National Bank Ltd. Vs. DCIT ITA No. 1519/Del/2016 for AY: 2012-13 by order dated 28.11.2018 held that in the case of Banks investment…

Wns Global Services P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Addl/Jt/Dy/Asstt/CIT/ITO, Nationa Faceless Assessment Centre, Dilhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1259/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Dec 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalwns Global Services Pvt. Ltd., Pl 10, Gate No.4, Godrej & Boyce Complex, Pirojshanagar, Lbs Marg, Vikhroli (West), Mumbai-400079. Pan: Aaacw2598L ...... Appellant Vs.. Addl./Jt/Dy./Acit/Ito/Nfac, Room No. 455, Circle-14(3)(1), Mumbai. ..... Respondent Appellant/Assessee By : Sh. Porus Kaka, Sr. Adv. & Sh. Manish Kant Respondent/Revenue By : Sh. Jasdeep Singh, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Sh. Porus Kaka, Sr. Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Jasdeep Singh, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92B

…ect and proximate, as the same has not been defined in the Act. In this regard, reliance is placed on the following judgments: HH Maharajadhiraja Madhav Rao Jivaji Rao Scindia Bahadur of Gwalior [1971] (1 SCC 85) CIT v. Walfort Share & Stock Brokers (P) Ltd. (326 ITR 1) (Supreme Court) The words 'expenditure incurred by the assessee' referred in Section 14A(1) of the Act imply that the act of spending must be in relation to exempt income and the objective of the expenditure would be relevant in order to conclude on its deductibility. In nutshell, the expenditure sought to be disallowed from the computation of the…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-7 vs. M/S Pushpanjali Fincon Pvt. Ltd

ITA - 518 / 2022HC Delhi08 Dec 2022
Section 14ASection 14A(1)Section 36

…total income, is not actually earned, subject to expenditure relatable to such income having been incurred? C. Whether the Ld. ITAT erred in law in ignoring the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Walfort Share & Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd. 326 ITR 1 (SC), followed in the case of Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT [2017] 81 taxmann.com 111 (SC), in the context of the Memorandum explaining the provisions Finance Bill, 2001 (introducing section 14A) as well as the Notes to the Clauses presented along with the said Bill, as follows:“The insertion of section 14A with retrospective effec…

Dandvati Investments & Trading Company P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 1(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1916/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं.3638/मुं/2012(िन.व. 2006-07) आअसं.1916/मुं/2014(िन.व. 2006-07) Dandvati Investments & Trading Company Pvt. Ltd. ‘The International’ 5Th Floor, 16, New Marine Lines Cross Road No.1, Churchgate, Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aaacd-3925-E ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Additional Commissioner Of Income Range 2(1) Mumbai. Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, ..... "ितवाद"/Respondent Mumbai – 400 020 आअसं.3635/मुं/2012 (िन.व. 2006-07) आअसं.1915/मुं/2014 (िन.व. 2006-07) M/S. Firestorm Electronics Corporation Pvt. Ltd. ‘The International’ 5Th Floor, 16, New Marine Lines Cross Road No.1, Churchgate, Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aaacf-4730-D ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle -1(1), Mumbai.Room No.533, 5Th Floor,Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020..... "ितवाद"/Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar & Ms.Ikshu ShahFor Respondent: Shri Hoshang Boman Irani /
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…d loss from the same business activity. The ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee in support of his submissions placed reliance on the following decisions: (i) TRF Ltd. vs. CIT, 323 ITR 397(SC); (ii) CIT vs. Walfort Share and Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd., 326 ITR 1(SC); (iii) Dr. T.A. Qureshi Vs. CIT, 287 ITR 547. 5.2 In respect of ground No.III of appeal, the ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee submits that during the period relevant to assessment year under appeal assessee had claimed foreign travel expenses to the tune of Rs.14,21,726/-. The aforesaid expenses were incurred for travel of Director…

Firestorm Electronics Corporation P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 1(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1915/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं.3638/मुं/2012(िन.व. 2006-07) आअसं.1916/मुं/2014(िन.व. 2006-07) Dandvati Investments & Trading Company Pvt. Ltd. ‘The International’ 5Th Floor, 16, New Marine Lines Cross Road No.1, Churchgate, Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aaacd-3925-E ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Additional Commissioner Of Income Range 2(1) Mumbai. Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, ..... "ितवाद"/Respondent Mumbai – 400 020 आअसं.3635/मुं/2012 (िन.व. 2006-07) आअसं.1915/मुं/2014 (िन.व. 2006-07) M/S. Firestorm Electronics Corporation Pvt. Ltd. ‘The International’ 5Th Floor, 16, New Marine Lines Cross Road No.1, Churchgate, Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aaacf-4730-D ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle -1(1), Mumbai.Room No.533, 5Th Floor,Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020..... "ितवाद"/Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar & Ms.Ikshu ShahFor Respondent: Shri Hoshang Boman Irani /
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…d loss from the same business activity. The ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee in support of his submissions placed reliance on the following decisions: (i) TRF Ltd. vs. CIT, 323 ITR 397(SC); (ii) CIT vs. Walfort Share and Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd., 326 ITR 1(SC); (iii) Dr. T.A. Qureshi Vs. CIT, 287 ITR 547. 5.2 In respect of ground No.III of appeal, the ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee submits that during the period relevant to assessment year under appeal assessee had claimed foreign travel expenses to the tune of Rs.14,21,726/-. The aforesaid expenses were incurred for travel of Director…

Dandvati Investments & Trading Company P Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3638/MUM/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं.3638/मुं/2012(िन.व. 2006-07) आअसं.1916/मुं/2014(िन.व. 2006-07) Dandvati Investments & Trading Company Pvt. Ltd. ‘The International’ 5Th Floor, 16, New Marine Lines Cross Road No.1, Churchgate, Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aaacd-3925-E ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Additional Commissioner Of Income Range 2(1) Mumbai. Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, ..... "ितवाद"/Respondent Mumbai – 400 020 आअसं.3635/मुं/2012 (िन.व. 2006-07) आअसं.1915/मुं/2014 (िन.व. 2006-07) M/S. Firestorm Electronics Corporation Pvt. Ltd. ‘The International’ 5Th Floor, 16, New Marine Lines Cross Road No.1, Churchgate, Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aaacf-4730-D ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle -1(1), Mumbai.Room No.533, 5Th Floor,Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020..... "ितवाद"/Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar & Ms.Ikshu ShahFor Respondent: Shri Hoshang Boman Irani /
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…d loss from the same business activity. The ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee in support of his submissions placed reliance on the following decisions: (i) TRF Ltd. vs. CIT, 323 ITR 397(SC); (ii) CIT vs. Walfort Share and Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd., 326 ITR 1(SC); (iii) Dr. T.A. Qureshi Vs. CIT, 287 ITR 547. 5.2 In respect of ground No.III of appeal, the ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee submits that during the period relevant to assessment year under appeal assessee had claimed foreign travel expenses to the tune of Rs.14,21,726/-. The aforesaid expenses were incurred for travel of Director…

Firestorm Electronics Corporaiton P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3635/MUM/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं.3638/मुं/2012(िन.व. 2006-07) आअसं.1916/मुं/2014(िन.व. 2006-07) Dandvati Investments & Trading Company Pvt. Ltd. ‘The International’ 5Th Floor, 16, New Marine Lines Cross Road No.1, Churchgate, Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aaacd-3925-E ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Additional Commissioner Of Income Range 2(1) Mumbai. Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, ..... "ितवाद"/Respondent Mumbai – 400 020 आअसं.3635/मुं/2012 (िन.व. 2006-07) आअसं.1915/मुं/2014 (िन.व. 2006-07) M/S. Firestorm Electronics Corporation Pvt. Ltd. ‘The International’ 5Th Floor, 16, New Marine Lines Cross Road No.1, Churchgate, Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aaacf-4730-D ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle -1(1), Mumbai.Room No.533, 5Th Floor,Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020..... "ितवाद"/Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar & Ms.Ikshu ShahFor Respondent: Shri Hoshang Boman Irani /
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…d loss from the same business activity. The ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee in support of his submissions placed reliance on the following decisions: (i) TRF Ltd. vs. CIT, 323 ITR 397(SC); (ii) CIT vs. Walfort Share and Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd., 326 ITR 1(SC); (iii) Dr. T.A. Qureshi Vs. CIT, 287 ITR 547. 5.2 In respect of ground No.III of appeal, the ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee submits that during the period relevant to assessment year under appeal assessee had claimed foreign travel expenses to the tune of Rs.14,21,726/-. The aforesaid expenses were incurred for travel of Director…

ACIT 2(1), Mumbai vs. Firestorm Electronics Corp Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3538/MUM/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं.3638/मुं/2012(िन.व. 2006-07) आअसं.1916/मुं/2014(िन.व. 2006-07) Dandvati Investments & Trading Company Pvt. Ltd. ‘The International’ 5Th Floor, 16, New Marine Lines Cross Road No.1, Churchgate, Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aaacd-3925-E ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Additional Commissioner Of Income Range 2(1) Mumbai. Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, ..... "ितवाद"/Respondent Mumbai – 400 020 आअसं.3635/मुं/2012 (िन.व. 2006-07) आअसं.1915/मुं/2014 (िन.व. 2006-07) M/S. Firestorm Electronics Corporation Pvt. Ltd. ‘The International’ 5Th Floor, 16, New Marine Lines Cross Road No.1, Churchgate, Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aaacf-4730-D ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle -1(1), Mumbai.Room No.533, 5Th Floor,Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020..... "ितवाद"/Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar & Ms.Ikshu ShahFor Respondent: Shri Hoshang Boman Irani /
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…d loss from the same business activity. The ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee in support of his submissions placed reliance on the following decisions: (i) TRF Ltd. vs. CIT, 323 ITR 397(SC); (ii) CIT vs. Walfort Share and Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd., 326 ITR 1(SC); (iii) Dr. T.A. Qureshi Vs. CIT, 287 ITR 547. 5.2 In respect of ground No.III of appeal, the ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee submits that during the period relevant to assessment year under appeal assessee had claimed foreign travel expenses to the tune of Rs.14,21,726/-. The aforesaid expenses were incurred for travel of Director…

Praxair India Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed as indicated hereinabove

ITA 200/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Nov 2022AY 2016-17
For Respondent: Shri T. Suryanarayana
Section 92C

…of exemption of exempt income without making any apportionment of expenses incurred in relation to exempt income. The High Court of Madras has relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. WALFORT SHARE AND STOCK BROKERS (2010) 326 ITR 1 wherein it has been held that Section 14A is relatable to income of actual income or not notional or anticipated income. Therefore, the conclusion arrived at by us in MIS NOVEL SOFTWARE INDIA (P) LTD. is affirmed but for different reasons. It is also clarified by us that while recording the conclusion in KINGFISHER FIN VEST LTD. that disallowance u…

National Fertilizers Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, Range- 18, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1148/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedia N D Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: Shri Aman Garg, C. AFor Respondent: [CIT] – D. R
Section 43B

…t is not conditional upon the earning of the income as upheld by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case CIT Vs. Rajendra Prasad Moody [1978] 115 ITR 519 and without considering ratio decidendi as upheld in cases of CIT Vs. Walfort Share and Stock Brokers P. Ltd [2010] 326 ITR 1 (SC) and Maxopp Investment Vs CIT [2012] 347 ITR 272 (Delhi) on application of provisions of section 14A of the Act? 9. Whether on facts and in circumstances of the case, Ld CIT (A) is legally justified in deleting disallowance of Rs. 3,12,972/- on account of additional depreciation claimed u/s 32 (1) (iia) of the Act without considering the fact t…

ACIT, Circle- 17(2), New Delhi vs. National Fertilizers Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1041/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedia N D Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: Shri Aman Garg, C. AFor Respondent: [CIT] – D. R
Section 43B

…t is not conditional upon the earning of the income as upheld by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case CIT Vs. Rajendra Prasad Moody [1978] 115 ITR 519 and without considering ratio decidendi as upheld in cases of CIT Vs. Walfort Share and Stock Brokers P. Ltd [2010] 326 ITR 1 (SC) and Maxopp Investment Vs CIT [2012] 347 ITR 272 (Delhi) on application of provisions of section 14A of the Act? 9. Whether on facts and in circumstances of the case, Ld CIT (A) is legally justified in deleting disallowance of Rs. 3,12,972/- on account of additional depreciation claimed u/s 32 (1) (iia) of the Act without considering the fact t…

Birla Corporation Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir.-6(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2011-12 &

ITA 495/KOL/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 37(1)Section 40Section 43B

…e exempt, the common expenses incurred in respect of such employees and infrastructure have to be necessarily apportioned between the taxable and exempt activities. As held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Walfort Share and Stock Brokers P. Ltd., (2010) 326 ITR 1(SC) and in Maxopp’s case (supra), the principle of apportionment of expenses comes into play as that is the principle which is incorporated in section 14A of the Act. The assessee adopted a reasonable basis for such apportionment. The ld. AO did not find anything to dispute the assessee’s computation except for saying that it is not as per rule 8D.…

Birla Corporation Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-6(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2011-12 &

ITA 494/KOL/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 37(1)Section 40Section 43B

…e exempt, the common expenses incurred in respect of such employees and infrastructure have to be necessarily apportioned between the taxable and exempt activities. As held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Walfort Share and Stock Brokers P. Ltd., (2010) 326 ITR 1(SC) and in Maxopp’s case (supra), the principle of apportionment of expenses comes into play as that is the principle which is incorporated in section 14A of the Act. The assessee adopted a reasonable basis for such apportionment. The ld. AO did not find anything to dispute the assessee’s computation except for saying that it is not as per rule 8D.…

DCIT, Circle - 6(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Birla Corporation Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2011-12 &

ITA 2112/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 37(1)Section 40Section 43B

…e exempt, the common expenses incurred in respect of such employees and infrastructure have to be necessarily apportioned between the taxable and exempt activities. As held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Walfort Share and Stock Brokers P. Ltd., (2010) 326 ITR 1(SC) and in Maxopp’s case (supra), the principle of apportionment of expenses comes into play as that is the principle which is incorporated in section 14A of the Act. The assessee adopted a reasonable basis for such apportionment. The ld. AO did not find anything to dispute the assessee’s computation except for saying that it is not as per rule 8D.…

DCIT, Circle - 6(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Birla Corporation Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2011-12 &

ITA 2111/KOL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 37(1)Section 40Section 43B

…e exempt, the common expenses incurred in respect of such employees and infrastructure have to be necessarily apportioned between the taxable and exempt activities. As held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Walfort Share and Stock Brokers P. Ltd., (2010) 326 ITR 1(SC) and in Maxopp’s case (supra), the principle of apportionment of expenses comes into play as that is the principle which is incorporated in section 14A of the Act. The assessee adopted a reasonable basis for such apportionment. The ld. AO did not find anything to dispute the assessee’s computation except for saying that it is not as per rule 8D.…

Mr. Manu Mahmud Parpia, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 14(1) (2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1514/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri, Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1514/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Mr. Manu Mahmud Parpia बिधम/ Ito-14(1)(2) 72, Tenerife Little Gibbs Room No. 457, Aayakar Vs. Road No.2, Malabar Hill, Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400006. Mumbai-400020. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacpp8377R (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K. Gopal Revenue By: Ms. Mahita Nair (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 13/10/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee (Individual) Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/ Nfac, Delhi Dated 19.04.2022 For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Of The Assessee Are As Under: - 1) “The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred In Conforming The Action Of The Assessing Officer In Disallowing Rs. 5,12,121/- Out Of Expenses U/S 14A. Your Appellant Submits That No Expenditure Has Been Incurred For The Purpose Of Earning Exempt Income & The Entire Disallowance Of Rs. 5,12,121/- Ought To Be Deleted. Without Prejudice To The Above, Your Appellant Submits That The Disallowance Is Excessive & Ought To Be Reduced Substantially.

For Appellant: Shri K. GopalFor Respondent: Ms. Mahita Nair (Sr. AR)
Section 10(33)Section 14ASection 234B

…discussion, we note that the assessee has not claimed any expenses for earning the exempt income. Hence there is no proximate cause for disallowance in relationship with the exempt income as held in case of CIT Vs. Walfort Shares & Stock brokers Pvt. Ltd. SC (326 ITR 1). Moreover, we note that the AO had resorted to disallowance u/s 14A of the Act for previous AY. 2012-13 and earlier AY. 2011-12 and for earlier AY. 2009-10 wherein the facts of the case of this relevant assessment year (AY. 2013-14) are identical and on appeal, we note that the Ld. CIT(A) has decided the matter in favour of the assessee and the re…

Pr. Commissioner Ofincome Tax-1 vs. Amadeus India Pvt. Ltd

Appeals are disposed of in terms

ITA/175/2020HC Delhi27 Oct 2022

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA

Section 14ASection 260A

…t does not account for the concept of ‘real income’. It does not note that under Section 5 of the Act, the question of taxation of ‘notional income’ does not arise. As explained in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Walfort Share and Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. [2010] 326 ITR 1 (SC), the mandate of Section 14A of the Act is to curb the practice of claiming deduction of expenses incurred in relation to exempt income being taxable income and at the same time avail of the tax incentives by way of exemption of exempt income without making any apportionment of expenses incurred in relation to exempt income. Consequently, the C…

ACIT Circle 10(1), Delhi vs. Hero Future Energies Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands partly allowed for

ITA 1986/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharma[Assessment Year: 2017-18]

Section 14ASection 37(1)

…it does not account for the concept of real income’. It does not note that under Section 5 of the Act, the question of taxation of ‘notional income’ does not arise. As explained in Commissioner of Income Tax V. Walfort Share and Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd [2010] 326 ITR 1(SC), the mandate of Section 14A of the Act is to curb the practice of claiming deduction of expenses incurred in relation to exempt income being taxable income and at the same time avail of the tax incentives by way of exemption of exempt income without making any apportionment of expenses incurred in relation to exempt income. Consequently, the Co…

ACIT Circle 10(1), Delhi vs. Hero Wind Energy Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1983/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharma[Assessment Year: 2017-18]

Section 14A

…it does not account for the concept of real income’. It does not note that under Section 5 of the Act, the question of taxation of ‘notional income’ does not arise. As explained in Commissioner of Income Tax V. Walfort Share and Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd [2010] 326 ITR 1(SC), the mandate of Section 14A of the Act is to curb the practice of claiming deduction of expenses incurred in relation to exempt income being taxable income and at the same time avail of the tax incentives by way of exemption of exempt income without making any apportionment of expenses incurred in relation to exempt income. Consequently, the Co…

Addl. CIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Metro Institute of Medical Science Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 3573/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharat

For Appellant: Shri Nirbhay Mehta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Jeetender Chand, Sr. DR
Section 14ASection 2(24)(x)Section 36Section 43

…case, the Ld. CIT(A) is legally justified in not upholding the disallowance u/s 14A of the Act read with rule 8D of the Rule of Rs. 1,91,74,875/- without considering ratio decidendi as upheld in cases of C1T vs. Walfort Share and Stock Brokers Pvt Ltd [2010] 326 ITR 1 (SC) and Maxopp Investment Vs. CIT {2012} 347 ITR 272 {Delhi} on application of provisions of section 14A of the Act? 7. Whether on facts and in circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) is legally justified in holding that the employee’s contribution to the Employees Provident Fund (EPF) which is deemed as the employer’s income u/s 2(24)(x) of the Ac…