← All Phrases

“Section 97(4)”

Section References (mined)Section 97Section 97(4)11 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 97(4) is Addl. CIT v. Miss Lata Mangeshkar (97 ITR 696), cited in 145 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 97(4)

Addl. CIT v. Miss Lata Mangeshkar
97 ITR 696 · 1974 · High Court
145
citing judgments

An addition to income cannot be made solely based on documents or material found from a third party's premises unless the Assessing Officer conducts an independent investigation, examines the third party, and establishes a clear link between the material and the assessee.

8 SOT 691 (Mum.) and Gargi Din Jwala Prasad v. CIT
96 ITR 97 · 1974 · High Court
49
citing judgments

The elementary principle of natural justice requires that an assessee must have knowledge of all material intended to be used against them in assessment proceedings, along with a reasonable opportunity to meet or rebut such material, including the right to cross-examine witnesses.

CBDT v. Oberoi Hotels India (P.) Ltd.
97 Taxmann 453 · 1998 · Supreme Court
38
citing judgments

The Supreme Court decision in CBDT v. Oberoi Hotels India (P.) Ltd. is not applicable to cases concerning the denial of approval under Section 80-O of the Act when services were provided to a non-resident, as the facts and context of that decision are different.

CIT v. Walfort Share & Stockbrokers (P) Ltd.
233 CTR 42 · 2010 · Supreme Court
19
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
15
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 97(4)

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

mention name of the assessee. The Ld.CIT(A) also granted relief to the assessee by observing that assessee did not violate provisions of section 97(4) of the act, and therefore the transaction of the short-term capital loss claimed by the assessee and exemption of dividend under section ... that as it may, it is noted that, the transaction undertaken by the assessee cannot be found fault with as the provisions of section 97 (4) is also not flouted by the assessee. Admittedly assessee is an investor who invested in JM Financial fund based on the public notice declared

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

mention name of the assessee. The Ld.CIT(A) also granted relief to the assessee by observing that assessee did not violate provisions of section 97(4) of the act, and therefore the transaction of the short-term capital loss claimed by the assessee and exemption of dividend under section ... that as it may, it is noted that, the transaction undertaken by the assessee cannot be found fault with as the provisions of section 97 (4) is also not flouted by the assessee. Admittedly assessee is an investor who invested in JM Financial fund based on the public notice declared

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

mention name of the assessee. The Ld.CIT(A) also granted relief to the assessee by observing that assessee did not violate provisions of section 97(4) of the act, and therefore the transaction of the short-term capital loss claimed by the assessee and exemption of dividend under section ... that as it may, it is noted that, the transaction undertaken by the assessee cannot be found fault with as the provisions of section 97 (4) is also not flouted by the assessee. Admittedly assessee is an investor who invested in JM Financial fund based on the public notice declared

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

mention name of the assessee. The Ld.CIT(A) also granted relief to the assessee by observing that assessee did not violate provisions of section 97(4) of the act, and therefore the transaction of the short-term capital loss claimed by the assessee and exemption of dividend under section ... that as it may, it is noted that, the transaction undertaken by the assessee cannot be found fault with as the provisions of section 97 (4) is also not flouted by the assessee. Admittedly assessee is an investor who invested in JM Financial fund based on the public notice declared

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

mention name of the assessee. The Ld.CIT(A) also granted relief to the assessee by observing that assessee did not violate provisions of section 97(4) of the act, and therefore the transaction of the short-term capital loss claimed by the assessee and exemption of dividend under section ... that as it may, it is noted that, the transaction undertaken by the assessee cannot be found fault with as the provisions of section 97 (4) is also not flouted by the assessee. Admittedly assessee is an investor who invested in JM Financial fund based on the public notice declared

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

mention name of the assessee. The Ld.CIT(A) also granted relief to the assessee by observing that assessee did not violate provisions of section 97(4) of the act, and therefore the transaction of the short-term capital loss claimed by the assessee and exemption of dividend under section ... that as it may, it is noted that, the transaction undertaken by the assessee cannot be found fault with as the provisions of section 97 (4) is also not flouted by the assessee. Admittedly assessee is an investor who invested in JM Financial fund based on the public notice declared

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

mention name of the assessee. The Ld.CIT(A) also granted relief to the assessee by observing that assessee did not violate provisions of section 97(4) of the act, and therefore the transaction of the short-term capital loss claimed by the assessee and exemption of dividend under section ... that as it may, it is noted that, the transaction undertaken by the assessee cannot be found fault with as the provisions of section 97 (4) is also not flouted by the assessee. Admittedly assessee is an investor who invested in JM Financial fund based on the public notice declared

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

mention name of the assessee. The Ld.CIT(A) also granted relief to the assessee by observing that assessee did not violate provisions of section 97(4) of the act, and therefore the transaction of the short-term capital loss claimed by the assessee and exemption of dividend under section ... that as it may, it is noted that, the transaction undertaken by the assessee cannot be found fault with as the provisions of section 97 (4) is also not flouted by the assessee. Admittedly assessee is an investor who invested in JM Financial fund based on the public notice declared

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)

cannot be termed as tax evasion schemes only due to the fact that the assessee derived benefit by complying to the provisions of Section 97(4) of the Act. Therefore the issue for our consideration is whether the impugned transaction being receipt of dividend and STCL are non-genuine

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)

cannot be termed as tax evasion schemes only due to the fact that the assessee derived benefit by complying to the provisions of Section 97(4) of the Act. Therefore the issue for our consideration is whether the impugned transaction being receipt of dividend and STCL are non-genuine

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)

cannot be termed as tax evasion schemes only due to the fact that the assessee derived benefit by complying to the provisions of Section 97(4) of the Act. Therefore the issue for our consideration is whether the impugned transaction being receipt of dividend and STCL are non-genuine