“Section 94(7)”

Section References (mined)Section 94Section 94(7)59 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 94(7) is CIT v. Walfort Share & Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd. (326 ITR 1), cited in 543 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 94(7)

CIT v. Walfort Share & Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd.

326 ITR 1 · 2010 · Supreme Court

543

citing judgments

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.

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

233 CTR 42 · 2010 · Supreme Court

citing judgments

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.

Calcutta in Eveready Industries India Ltd. v. CIT & Anr.

334 ITR 413 · 2011 · High Court

citing judgments

The court examines a transaction involving the purchase and sale of UTI units with a short holding period, highlighting the cum-dividend purchase in relation to a booking closing date.

Judgments citing Section 94(7)

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)

incurred of Rs. 61,96,50,080/-by the Assessee on the sale of mutual funds, invoking the provisions of dividend stripping under Section 94(7) of the Income Tax Act?" 4 ITA 5657/M/24-CO 276/ M/ 24-ITA 5620/ M/24 -CO 277M/ 24- ITA 5622/M/24- Subhkam Ventures

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)

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

made after duly considering the market information. Apart from that, it has been submitted that ld. AO has not invoked the provision of Section 94(7) and even otherwise also the said section is not applicable. For the sake of ready reference, Section 94(7) is reproduced hereunder:- “Where ... computed by reducing the cost of acquisition and expenditure incurred on transfer from sale consideration. In absence of applicability of Section 94(7), such short term capital loss is otherwise allowable under the Act. It has been further noted by the ld. CIT(A) that assessee has also invested

Graphite India Ltd., Kolkata vs. Pr.CIT-4, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1014/KOL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37(1)Section 48

that the assessee has not received any dividend during the year under consideration from the securities sold during the year. Hence, provisions of Section 94(7) does not get attracted. Further no STT has been levied on sale or purchase of any securities. 15.3. Please also explain

Indiabulls Commercial Credit Limited, New Delhi vs. PCIT (Central), Mumbai-3, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 2844/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Mar 2025AY 2019-20

For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Date of Hearing

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 94(7)

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORESHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Addi Charitable Trust, New Delhi vs. CIT Exemption, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed as boave for statistical purpose

ITA 3010/DEL/2023[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 10(38)Section 115J

days of purchase of funds and therefore Section 94 should be invoked. 4.10 In this regard we wish to submit that provisions of Section 94(7) can only be applicable on the short term capital loss. However, the issue we are dealing is of long term capital gains, therefore, provisions ... section 94(7) cannot be invoked here and further the Ld. Assessing officer has specifically made an addition of Rs.3,18,320/- u/s 94(7) which the appellant has accepted and has not appealed against the same. 4.11 Your honour is hereby requested to delete the addition as made

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

first conditions related to purchase of units within three months prior to record date is not satisfied. The provisions of dividend stripping under section 94(7) of the Act are not applicable. Therefore, it is not open to disallow the short term capital loss to the extent of dividend received ... exempt income during the year under consideration. 5.1 In this connection, I have gone through the provisions of section 94(7) of the Act which read as under: (7) Where— (a) any person buys or acquires any securities or unit within a period of three months prior to the record

M/S Giriraj Enterprises, Pune vs. DCIT, Central Circle 1(1), Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 427/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S PathakFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR

Section 10(35)Section 132Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

Mutual Fund. He submitted that the transaction of receipt of dividend and subsequent sale is not covered by the provisions of section 94(7) of the Act. He finally submitted that since there is no evidence brought on record by the Assessing Officer to prove that the assessee was hand ... 25/PUN/2024 cannot be said that transaction entered into by the assessee is fictitious or sham. With respect to the applicability of provisions of section 94 (7) of the act, the lower authorities have also accepted that the assessee fulfils the condition by which the transaction insecurities cannot be considered

DCIT CC 1(1), Mumbai vs. Edel Finance Company Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed, and cross objection of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 3025/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

Section 10(34)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 14ASection 250Section 94(7)

dividend income and incurring loss on transaction, both on the same investment amounts to tax evasion through Dividend Stripping and hence provisions of Section 94(7) is attracted?” 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a public limited company registered with the Reserve Bank ... balance amount of Rs.86,13,425/- was added back under section 14A of the Act. Questioning the other issue for contravening section 94(7) related to not fulfilling the conditions and assessee was unable to submit documents related to applicability of provisions of section 94(7) and in response

Balram Chainrai, Mumbai vs. Int Tax, Ward 2(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2267/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ravikant Pathak, ARFor Respondent: Shri Anil Sant, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 153Section 271(1)(c)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE MS PADMAVATHY S, AM & SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JM I.T.A

Praveen Ranjan Sinha, Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Circle-3(1), Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and Stay Application of the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 399/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri M. Balaganeshpraveen Ranjan Sinha, Vs. Dcit, Icb 141, The Icon, Dlf Circle-3(1), City, Phase-V, Gurgaon, Gurgaon Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Ardps3000N Sa No. 57/Del/2024 (In Ita No. 399/Del/2024) (Assessment Year: 2015-16) Praveen Ranjan Sinha, Vs. Dcit, Icb 141, The Icon, Dlf Circle-3(1), City, Phase-V, Gurgaon, Gurgaon Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Ardps3000N Assessee By : Shri Sudesh Garg, Adv Ms. Bhavya Garg, Adv Revenue By: Shri Dharambir Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 08/04/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 08/07/2024

For Appellant: Shri Sudesh Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Dharambir Singh, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 145Section 2Section 250Section 55(2)(aa)Section 94(8)

that there was a pre-planned action yet there was nothing to impeach the genuineness of the transaction. Adverting to the provisions of section 94(7) of the Act, the Hon'ble Supreme Court noted that in the case of assessment, before 01.04.2002 i.e. before insertion of section 94(7 ... pertaining to the exempted income could not be disallowed. The assessment year before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was before the insertion of section 94(7) of the Act. It has also been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that even after applying section 94(7) to cases

DCIT, CC -1(4), Mumbai vs. M/S. Hindalco Industries Ltd., Mumbai

Accordingly, there is no substance raised by the department and the same is dismissed

ITA 619/KOL/2007[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jul 2024AY 2003-04

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 80Section 80I

investments was erroneous; instead in holding that the aforesaid loss on sale of investments was not allowable in view of the provisions of section 94(7) of the Act. 13.1.That the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in not appreciating that provision of Section 94 ... dividend plan was explained. 54. However, the CIT (A) has treated the entire loss as arising out of bonus plan as covered by section 94(7) which only deals with mischief of dividend stripping. Further the loss arising out of dividend plan was not considered at all. 55. Before

M/S. Hindalco Industries Ltd.(Earlier Known As Indian Aluminium Company Ltd), Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC -1(4) (Earlier Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-8, Kolkatta), Mumbai

ITA 612/KOL/2007[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jul 2024AY 2003-04

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 80Section 80I

Shri Nilesh Haresh Parwani, Mumbai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-22(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2244/MUM/2023[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 May 2024AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhshri Nilesh Haresh Vs. The Assistant Parwani, 501, Chumchum Commissioner Of Income Saraswati Road, Tax-22 (2) Santacruz West, Room No. 315, Piramal Mumbai – 400 064 Chamber, Lalbaug, Mumbai – 400 012 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Angpp1224L Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Sanjay Parikh Respondent By : Anil Sant Date Of Hearing 08.03.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 15.05.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A) Nfac For A.Y. 2014-15. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “A. Addition/Disallowance Of Short Term Capital Loss Rs.1,62,91,466/- 1. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Erred On Facts & In Law In Confirming The Addition/Disallowance Of Short Term Capital Loss Of Rs. 1,62,91,466/- As Made By The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, 22(2), Mumbai (Ao). 2. While Confirming The Addition/Disallowance Of The Said Loss, The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Holding That The Appellant Had Not Made Out A Case As To How Such Huge Ltcg/Stcl Has Accrued To The Appellant From Shares Of The Company Named Global Infratech Ltd.

For Appellant: Sanjay ParikhFor Respondent: Anil Sant

Section 143(2)Section 69C

P a g e | 1 Shri Nilesh Haresh Parwani Vs. The ACIT-22(2) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

Shri Raghvendra Mohta, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle - 36, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2416/KOL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Miraj D. Shah, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 68Section 69CSection 94(7)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT

Venerable Advertising Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. PCIT, Kol-1, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 459/KOL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Jan 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No.459/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Venerable Advertising Pvt. Ltd....................…...……………....Appellant 6, Kali Krishna Tagore Street, Jorbagan, Kolkata- 700007. [Pan: Aaacv8673M] Vs. Pcit, Kolkata-1, Kolkata…..........................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Aayush Kedia, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri S. Datta, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 30, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 16, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Revision Order Dated 14.03.2023 Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Pcit’] U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). The Assessee In This Appeal Has Agitated Against The Action Of The Pr. Cit In Exercising His Revision Jurisdiction U/S 263 Of The Act & Thereby Directing The Assessing Officer To Frame The Assessment Afresh. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Vide Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year Under Consideration I.E. A.Y 2018-19 Declared Total Income Of Rs.1,09,24,210/- Which Was Accepted By The Assessing Officer In The Assessment Carried Out U/S 143(3) Of The Act. However, Later On, The Ld. Pr. Cit In Exercising Of His Revision

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 94(7)

sale of JM Financial Mutual Fund in view of the provisions of section 94(7) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Besides this, the assessee earned a short-term capital gain of Rs. 40,94,308/- on the sale of other securities. Thus, the net short-term capital loss ... also incurred loss of Rs.76,37,68,696/- on sale of the units of 'JM Financial Mutual Fund'. However, the provisions of section 94(7) of the Act were attracted in this case, therefore, net loss was computed by the assessee at Rs.1,36,35,922/- after deducting the same

ACIT 2(3), Mumbai vs. Zensar Technologies Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal preferred by the Revenue is dismissed while the Cross Objection filed by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 3492/MUM/2010[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2023AY 2002-03

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 3Section 94(7)

Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 2(3) in levying penalty on short term capital loss of Rs.6,23,064 disallowed under section 94(7) of the Act. The respondents crave leave to add to, alter, amend, vary, omit or substitute the aforesaid grounds of cross objections ... sustaining levy of penalty on INR 6,23,064/-, being Short Term Capita Loss disallowed by Assessing Officer under Section 94(7) of the Act. 6. When the appeal was taken up for hearing, at the outset, the Ld. Authorised Representative for the Assessee invited our attention to the penalty

M/S. Zensar Technologies Ltd, Mumbai vs. The DCIT -2(3), Mumbai

In the result, ground No.5 and the additional ground of appeal are allowed

ITA 2907/MUM/2008[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2023AY 2002-2003

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shrigagan Goyalआअसं.2907/मुं/2008 ("न.व.2002-03) Zensar Technologies Ltd. Magnet House, 2Nd Floor, Narottam Morarjee Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai 400 038. Pan: Aaacf-0742-K ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 2(31), Mumbai Mumbai. ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By Shri Nitesh Joshi, Advocate : ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : S/Shri Jasdeep Singh, Cit-Dr & Pratap Narayan Sharma, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 02/06/2023 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 28/08/2023 आदेश/Order

For Respondent: S/Shri Jasdeep Singh, CIT-DR &

Section 10ASection 115JSection 234DSection 80HSection 94(7)

Income from other sources’ . 8. The CIT(A) ought to have held that since no dividend income has been received, the provision of Section 94(7) are not applicable and the short term capital loss of Rs.6,23,062/- arising on sale of units of Mutual Funds not be disallowed ... file of Assessing Officer for the purpose of verification and re-computation of correct amount to be 12 disallowed under the provisions of section 94(7) of the Act. The ground No.8 of appeal is thus, allowed for statistical purpose. 16. In ground No.9 of appeal, the assessee has assailed

Jm Financial Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 4(3), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3987/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Aug 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 143(3)

outset, we may state that we have two sets of cases before us. The lead matter covers assessment years before insertion of section 94(7) vide Finance Act, 2001 with effect from 1-4-2002. With regard to such cases we may state that on facts it is established that

DCIT 4(3)(1), Mumbai vs. J.M. Financial Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3925/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Aug 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 143(3)