Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai v. Wallfort Shares and Stock Broker Pvt. Ltd.

8 SCC 137Reported decision2010#25802 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2013 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 10(34)Section 143(3)Section 14A Section 250

Judgments citing Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai v. Wallfort Shares and Stock Broker Pvt. Ltd.

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

…total income and is exempt from tax. This triggers the applicability of Section 14-A of the Act which is based on the theory of apportionment of expenditure between taxable and non-taxable income as held in Walfort Share and Stock Brokers (P) Ltd. case (2010) 8 SCC 137, (2010) 326 ITR 1. Therefore, to that extent, depending upon the facts of each case, the expenditure incurred in acquiring those shares will have to be apportioned. 49. We note from the facts in State Bank of Patiala case (2017) 391 ITR 218 (P&H) that the AO, while passing the assessment order, had already restricted the disallowance to the amount…

SHRI. SHANKARLAL GILADA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,

ITA/200002/2018HC Karnataka22 Jan 2020

Bench: G.NARENDAR,M.NAGAPRASANNA

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 260A

…s hue, the principle of apportionment of expenses comes into play as that is the principle which is engrained in Section 14-A of the Act. This is so held in Walfort Share and Stock Brokers (P) Ltd. [CIT v. Walfort Share and Stock Brokers (P) Ltd., (2010) 8 SCC 137 : (2010) 326 ITR 1] , relevant passage whereof is already reproduced above, for the sake of continuity of discussion, we would like to quote the following few lines therefrom: (SCC p. 151, paras 34 & 36) “34. … The next phrase is, “in relation to income which does not form part of total income under this Act”. It means that if an 14 incom…

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. Dr. T.Ravi Kumar,

ITTA/102/2012HC Telangana24 Jul 2013

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani & The Hon’Ble Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj Date : 10Th April, 2024. Appearance: Mr. J. P. Khaitan, Senior Advocate Mr. Sanjay Bhowmick, Advocate Ms. Swapna Das, Advocate … For The Appellant. Ms. Smita Das De, Advocate … For The Respondent. 1. Heard Sri J. P. Khaitan, Learned Senior Advocate Assisted By Sri Sanjay Bhowmick, Learned Counsel For The Appellant/Assessee & Ms. Smita Das De, Learned Senior Standing Counsel For The Respondent. 2. The Assessment Years Involved In The Present Appeal Are Assessment Year 1999-2000 & Assessment Year 2000-01. By Order Dated 16.08.2012, This Appeal Was Admitted On The Following Substantial Questions Of Law :-

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 24(1)(i)Section 32Section 43B

…, as such, the interest paid to financial institutions/banks being an allowable expenditure under Section 43B of the Act, 1961 was bound to be allowed. 15. In the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai Vs. Wallfort Shares and Stock Broker Pvt. Ltd. (2010) 8 SCC 137 (para 8) Hon’ble Supreme Court considered the scheme of Sections 30 to 37 of the Act and held that the scheme of Sections 32 to 37 is that the profits and gains must be computed subject to certain allowances for deductions/expenditures. The charge is not gross receipts. It is on profits and gains. Profits have to be computed after deducting…