CIT v. Walfort Share & Stockbrokers (P) Ltd.

233 CTR 42Supreme Court of India2010#6007 most cited

What is CIT v. Walfort Share & Stockbrokers (P) Ltd. authority for?

Disallowance of expenditure under Section 14A requires a proximate cause establishing the relationship between the expenditure and the exempt income. The expenditure must have a real, dominant, and immediate relationship with income not forming part of the total income.

19

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Walfort Share & Stockbrokers · section 14A · disallowance of interest · borrowed funds · exempt income · proximate cause · dominant and immediate relationship · income not forming part of total income

Sections most often in play

Section 10(35)Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 148ASection 48Section 94(7)Section 97(4)Section 143(3)

Issues it is cited on

section 94(7)record datesection 94section 10(33)section 10(35)azadi bachao andolanperiod of holdingtax benefitcolourable deviceorder under section 148a(d)section 11(1)section 48

Judgments citing CIT v. Walfort Share & Stockbrokers (P) Ltd.

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata vs. Techno Electric & Engineering Company Ltd, Uttar Pradesh

Appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1982/KOL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY (Judicial Member)

Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 250

…ed funds cannot be made. Reliance was placed on the decision of CIT Vs. Reliance Utilities and Power Limited 178 3 Techno Electric & Engineering Company Ltd. Taxmann 135 (Bombay) and Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Walfort Share and Stockbrokers 233 CTR 42 (SC). 6.2 It was further pleaded that the AO has not properly associated the nature of business as well as the investments made by the appellant and has applied the provisions of section 14A read with Rule 8D mechanically. Reliance was placed on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Limited Vs. CIT 91 Taxmann.com 1…

DCIT, Mumbai vs. Sanjula Sumati Kothari, Mumbai

In the result, all appeals filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 3002/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

Section 10(35)Section 133A

…CTO reported (1985) 47 CTR 126, the celebrated decision in case of Union of India & Anr. vs Azadi Bachao Andolan & Anr. reported (2003) 184 CTR 450 and decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs Walfort Share & Stockbrokers (P) Ltd., reported (2010) 233 CTR 42.Hon’ble Court analysed identical arguments of the revenue, as is raised before this Tribunal, by observing as under: 16. It is thus clear that petitioner is only a small fry in the larger scheme of things and in fact himself a victim of the alleged fraud of JM Financial and again being victimised by the Assessing Officer. Even in the order where…

DCIT, Mumbai vs. Sanjula Sumati Kothari, Mumbai

In the result, all appeals filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 3001/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

Section 10(35)Section 133A

…CTO reported (1985) 47 CTR 126, the celebrated decision in case of Union of India & Anr. vs Azadi Bachao Andolan & Anr. reported (2003) 184 CTR 450 and decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs Walfort Share & Stockbrokers (P) Ltd., reported (2010) 233 CTR 42.Hon’ble Court analysed identical arguments of the revenue, as is raised before this Tribunal, by observing as under: 16. It is thus clear that petitioner is only a small fry in the larger scheme of things and in fact himself a victim of the alleged fraud of JM Financial and again being victimised by the Assessing Officer. Even in the order where…

DCIT, Mumbai vs. Lalita Kothari, Mumbai

In the result, all appeals filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 3000/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

Section 10(35)Section 133A

…CTO reported (1985) 47 CTR 126, the celebrated decision in case of Union of India & Anr. vs Azadi Bachao Andolan & Anr. reported (2003) 184 CTR 450 and decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs Walfort Share & Stockbrokers (P) Ltd., reported (2010) 233 CTR 42.Hon’ble Court analysed identical arguments of the revenue, as is raised before this Tribunal, by observing as under: 16. It is thus clear that petitioner is only a small fry in the larger scheme of things and in fact himself a victim of the alleged fraud of JM Financial and again being victimised by the Assessing Officer. Even in the order where…

DCIT, Mumbai vs. Kanta Ganpatlal Kothari, Mumbai

In the result, all appeals filed by the Revenue stands

ITA 2999/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

Section 10(35)Section 133A

…CTO reported (1985) 47 CTR 126, the celebrated decision in case of Union of India & Anr. vs Azadi Bachao Andolan & Anr. reported (2003) 184 CTR 450 and decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs Walfort Share & Stockbrokers (P) Ltd., reported (2010) 233 CTR 42.Hon'ble Court analysed identical arguments of the revenue, as is raised before this Tribunal, by observing as under: 16. It is thus clear that petitioner is only a small fry in the larger scheme of things and in fact himself a victim of the alleged fraud of JM Financial and again being victimised by the Assessing Officer. Even in the order where i…

DCIT, Mumbai vs. Kanta Ganpatlal Kothari, Mumbai

In the result, all appeals filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 2998/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

Section 10(35)Section 133A

…CTO reported (1985) 47 CTR 126, the celebrated decision in case of Union of India & Anr. vs Azadi Bachao Andolan & Anr. reported (2003) 184 CTR 450 and decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs Walfort Share & Stockbrokers (P) Ltd., reported (2010) 233 CTR 42.Hon’ble Court analysed identical arguments of the revenue, as is raised before this Tribunal, by observing as under: 16. It is thus clear that petitioner is only a small fry in the larger scheme of things and in fact himself a victim of the alleged fraud of JM Financial and again being victimised by the Assessing Officer. Even in the order where…

DCIT, Mumbai vs. Anita Kothari, Mumbai

In the result, all appeals filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 2996/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

Section 10(35)Section 133A

…CTO reported (1985) 47 CTR 126, the celebrated decision in case of Union of India & Anr. vs Azadi Bachao Andolan & Anr. reported (2003) 184 CTR 450 and decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs Walfort Share & Stockbrokers (P) Ltd., reported (2010) 233 CTR 42.Hon’ble Court analysed identical arguments of the revenue, as is raised before this Tribunal, by observing as under: 16. It is thus clear that petitioner is only a small fry in the larger scheme of things and in fact himself a victim of the alleged fraud of JM Financial and again being victimised by the Assessing Officer. Even in the order where…

DCIT, Mumbai vs. Lalita Kothari, Mumbai

In the result, all appeals filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 2990/MUM/2025[2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2025

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

Section 10(35)Section 133A

…CTO reported (1985) 47 CTR 126, the celebrated decision in case of Union of India & Anr. vs Azadi Bachao Andolan & Anr. reported (2003) 184 CTR 450 and decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs Walfort Share & Stockbrokers (P) Ltd., reported (2010) 233 CTR 42.Hon’ble Court analysed identical arguments of the revenue, as is raised before this Tribunal, by observing as under: 16. It is thus clear that petitioner is only a small fry in the larger scheme of things and in fact himself a victim of the alleged fraud of JM Financial and again being victimised by the Assessing Officer. Even in the order where…

DCIT, Mumbai vs. Anita Kothari, Mumbai

In the result, all appeals filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 2988/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

Section 10(35)Section 133A

…CTO reported (1985) 47 CTR 126, the celebrated decision in case of Union of India & Anr. vs Azadi Bachao Andolan & Anr. reported (2003) 184 CTR 450 and decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs Walfort Share & Stockbrokers (P) Ltd., reported (2010) 233 CTR 42.Hon’ble Court analysed identical arguments of the revenue, as is raised before this Tribunal, by observing as under: 16. It is thus clear that petitioner is only a small fry in the larger scheme of things and in fact himself a victim of the alleged fraud of JM Financial and again being victimised by the Assessing Officer. Even in the order where…

Triveni Engineering & Industries Ltd., Noida vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 1959/DEL/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Aug 2020AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14A

…ion “in relation to” has been judiciously explained in various decisions to mean some real, dominant and immediate relationship. In this regard, the Ld. AR pointed out the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Walfort Share & Stock Brokers: 233 CTR 42, wherein it has 14A of the Act. In the case of Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. DCIT 328 ITR 81, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court, while deciding the issue of disallowance under Section 14A of the Act, following the aforesaid the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in Walfort Shares & Stock Brokers (supra), observed that disallowance under Section 14A can…

Triveni Engineering & Industries Ltd., Noida vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 1958/DEL/2016[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Aug 2020AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14A

…ion “in relation to” has been judiciously explained in various decisions to mean some real, dominant and immediate relationship. In this regard, the Ld. AR pointed out the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Walfort Share & Stock Brokers: 233 CTR 42, wherein it has 14A of the Act. In the case of Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. DCIT 328 ITR 81, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court, while deciding the issue of disallowance under Section 14A of the Act, following the aforesaid the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in Walfort Shares & Stock Brokers (supra), observed that disallowance under Section 14A can…

Triveni Engineering & Industries Ltd., Noida vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 1957/DEL/2016[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Aug 2020AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14A

…ion “in relation to” has been judiciously explained in various decisions to mean some real, dominant and immediate relationship. In this regard, the Ld. AR pointed out the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Walfort Share & Stock Brokers: 233 CTR 42, wherein it has 14A of the Act. In the case of Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. DCIT 328 ITR 81, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court, while deciding the issue of disallowance under Section 14A of the Act, following the aforesaid the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in Walfort Shares & Stock Brokers (supra), observed that disallowance under Section 14A can…

Triveni Engineering & Industries Ltd., Noida vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 1956/DEL/2016[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Aug 2020AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14A

…ion “in relation to” has been judiciously explained in various decisions to mean some real, dominant and immediate relationship. In this regard, the Ld. AR pointed out the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Walfort Share & Stock Brokers: 233 CTR 42, wherein it has 14A of the Act. In the case of Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. DCIT 328 ITR 81, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court, while deciding the issue of disallowance under Section 14A of the Act, following the aforesaid the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in Walfort Shares & Stock Brokers (supra), observed that disallowance under Section 14A can…

Triveni Engineering & Industries Ltd., Noida vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

ITA 1955/DEL/2016[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Aug 2020AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14A

…ion “in relation to” has been judiciously explained in various decisions to mean some real, dominant and immediate relationship. In this regard, the Ld. AR pointed out the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Walfort Share & Stock Brokers: 233 CTR 42, wherein it has 14A of the Act. In the case of Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. DCIT 328 ITR 81, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court, while deciding the issue of disallowance under Section 14A of the Act, following the aforesaid the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in Walfort Shares & Stock Brokers (supra), observed that disallowance under Section 14A can…

Aangan Agrotech Exports Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 474/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Mahavir Prasad)

For Appellant: Shri Afaq Saiyed, ARFor Respondent: Shri S. K. Dev, Sr. D.R
Section 10(38)Section 14A

…ourt after, discussing in length, the applicability of the principle of apportionment for the purpose of section 14A has also been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Walfort Share & Stock Pvt. Ltd. (SC) (2010) 192 TAXMAN 211 (SC) / (2010) 233 CTR 42 (SC) delivered on 06.07.2010. 7. From the above, it is clear that 14A is applicable in case of composite and indivisible business which may result in taxable and non - taxable income, which may be incidental to the main business. 8. Since the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the apportionment has to be done for expenses towards taxable and non…

Biocon Research Limited, Bangalore vs. CIT(A) I, Bangalore

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

ITA 1329/BANG/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Dec 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.N.Parbat, CIT(DR)
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 14ASection 194CSection 40

…iture incurred to earn exempt income. Therefore, the question of invoking provisions of section 14A does not arise. Reliance in this regard was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Walfort Share & Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd. (233 CTR 42) wherein it has been held that in absence of any nexus between expenditure and earning of tax exempt income, question of invoking 14A does not arise. Reliance in this regard was placed on the following decisions: (i) Canara Bank vs. ACIT (52 taxmann.com 162)(Kar)(HC) (ii) Subramanya Constructions & Development Co. Ltd. (TS-100- ITAT-2015(Bang) (…

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Biocon Research Ltd., Bangalore

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

ITA 1251/BANG/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Dec 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.N.Parbat, CIT(DR)
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 14ASection 194CSection 40

…iture incurred to earn exempt income. Therefore, the question of invoking provisions of section 14A does not arise. Reliance in this regard was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Walfort Share & Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd. (233 CTR 42) wherein it has been held that in absence of any nexus between expenditure and earning of tax exempt income, question of invoking 14A does not arise. Reliance in this regard was placed on the following decisions: (i) Canara Bank vs. ACIT (52 taxmann.com 162)(Kar)(HC) (ii) Subramanya Constructions & Development Co. Ltd. (TS-100- ITAT-2015(Bang) (…

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Biocon Research Ltd., Bangalore

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

ITA 1250/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Dec 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.N.Parbat, CIT(DR)
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 14ASection 194CSection 40

…iture incurred to earn exempt income. Therefore, the question of invoking provisions of section 14A does not arise. Reliance in this regard was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Walfort Share & Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd. (233 CTR 42) wherein it has been held that in absence of any nexus between expenditure and earning of tax exempt income, question of invoking 14A does not arise. Reliance in this regard was placed on the following decisions: (i) Canara Bank vs. ACIT (52 taxmann.com 162)(Kar)(HC) (ii) Subramanya Constructions & Development Co. Ltd. (TS-100- ITAT-2015(Bang) (…

Biocon Research Limited, Bangalore vs. CIT(A) I, Bangalore

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

ITA 1229/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Dec 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.N.Parbat, CIT(DR)
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 14ASection 194CSection 40

…iture incurred to earn exempt income. Therefore, the question of invoking provisions of section 14A does not arise. Reliance in this regard was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Walfort Share & Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd. (233 CTR 42) wherein it has been held that in absence of any nexus between expenditure and earning of tax exempt income, question of invoking 14A does not arise. Reliance in this regard was placed on the following decisions: (i) Canara Bank vs. ACIT (52 taxmann.com 162)(Kar)(HC) (ii) Subramanya Constructions & Development Co. Ltd. (TS-100- ITAT-2015(Bang) (…

CIT v. Walfort Share & Stockbrokers (P) Ltd. (233 CTR 42) — Cited in 19 Judgments | BharatTax