Which cases are most cited on Section 94(7)?

CIT v. Walfort Share & Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd. (326 ITR 1) — 543 citing judgments; Gramaphone Co. of India Ltd. v. Birendra Bahadur Pandey (132 Taxmann 373) — 146 citing judgments; CIT v. Walfort Share & Stockbrokers (P) Ltd. (233 CTR 42) — 19 citing judgments; Calcutta in Eveready Industries India Ltd. v. CIT & Anr. (334 ITR 413) — 15 citing judgments; Karan Maheshwari v. ACIT (176 Taxmann.com 700) — 8 citing judgments.

How many judgments are there on Section 94(7)?

BharatTax indexes 130 ITAT, High Court and Supreme Court judgments that turn on Section 94(7) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Section 94(7) of the Income Tax Act

Q: What is the leading case on Section 94(7) of the Income Tax Act?

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

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.175

Section 94(7) falls under section 94 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which corresponds to section 175 (Avoidance of tax by certain transactions in securities) of the Income-tax Act, 2025.

Read section 175 of the 2025 Act

Correspondence checked against the ICAI tabular mapping of the two Acts and the BharatTax.co section commentary.

The decision most relied on for Section 94(7) is CIT v. Walfort Share & Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd. (326 ITR 1), cited in 543 of the 130 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

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.

Gramaphone Co. of India Ltd. v. Birendra Bahadur Pandey

132 Taxmann 373 · 2003 · Supreme Court

146

citing judgments

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.

Karan Maheshwari v. ACIT

176 Taxmann.com 700 · 2025 · Reported

citing judgments

McDowell & Co\nLtd v. CTO

47 CTR 126 · 1985 · Reported

citing judgments

Agencies Rajasthan (P) Ltd. v. ITO

109 Taxmann.com 139 · Reported

citing judgments

Income Tax Officer, Income Tax v. Sumitra Rajeshbhai Jain, Mumbai

2025 SCC OnLine ITAT 1859 · 2025 · Reported

citing judgments

434 ITR 1 (Bom.) (FB), Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh v. DCIT

462 ITR 307 · High Court

citing judgments

Judgments on Section 94(7)

ACIT, Parel, Mumbai vs. Kakk Family Private Trust, Bandra(E)

In the result appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 543/MUM/2026[2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Sept 2026

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Bijayananda Prusethacit Vs. Kakk Family Private Trust R.N. 511 5Th Floor Piramal Plot No. C-22, G Block C/O Il & Fs Chambers Lal Baug Parel Mumbai- Trust Company Ltd Bkc Bandra(E), 400012. Mumbai-400051. Pan/Gir No: Aabtk1635J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Revenue By Smt. Sujatha Iyyanger, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 21.09.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 28.09.2026 O R D E R Per Bijyananda Pruseth, Am:

Section 250Section 94(7)

Gajanan Enterprises, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle 17(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3519/MUM/2026[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pawan Singh ()

For Appellant: Shri Jay N. Bhansali, Adv. a/w MsFor Respondent: Shri Basavaraj Hiremath – CIT DR a/w Shri Rajgopal Parthasarathi –

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 94(7)

Gajanan Enterprises, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle 17(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3518/MUM/2026[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pawan Singh ()

For Appellant: Shri Jay N. Bhansali, Adv. a/w MsFor Respondent: Shri Basavaraj Hiremath – CIT DR a/w Shri Rajgopal Parthasarathi –

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 94(7)

Gajanan Enterprises, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle 17(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3517/MUM/2026[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pawan Singh ()

For Appellant: Shri Jay N. Bhansali, Adv. a/w MsFor Respondent: Shri Basavaraj Hiremath – CIT DR a/w Shri Rajgopal Parthasarathi –

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 94(7)

Gajanan Enterprises, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle 17(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3516/MUM/2026[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pawan Singh ()

For Appellant: Shri Jay N. Bhansali, Adv. a/w MsFor Respondent: Shri Basavaraj Hiremath – CIT DR a/w Shri Rajgopal Parthasarathi –

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 94(7)

Colvyn James Harris, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 42(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 8925/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jul 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarcolvyn James Harris Dcit Circle-42(2)(1) 1103-B, 11Th Floor, Kautilya Bhawan, Bkc Vivarea Tower, Sane Vs. Mumbai-400 051 Guruji Marg, Jacob Circle, Mumbai – 400 011 Pan/Gir No. Abrpc4477B (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Fenil Bhat, Ld. Ar Revenue By Shri V. S. Mahajan, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 06.05.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 08.07.2026 आदेश / Order Per Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As "The Cit(A)"], For The Assessment Year 2019-20, Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Passed By The Assessment

Section 10(35)Section 133ASection 144BSection 147Section 148Section 94(7)

Komal Malhotra, C/O Akul Agarwal and Associates vs. ACIT, Central Cir 13, Delhi, Income Tax Department

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7746/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jul 2026AY 2018-19

Section 10(35)Section 133ASection 147Section 148ASection 153ASection 250

Shresth Enclave Advisory Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. PCIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2356/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 May 2026AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Mr. C.J. Yeswanthram, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Ann Mary Baby, CIT

Section 10(35)Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 263

Punita Kalpesh Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Circle-5(2)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 2054/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

Section 10(34)Section 10(35)Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 144BSection 54FSection 94(7)

Ramesh Purshottam Modi, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Circle 22(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6577/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarramesh Purshottam Ito Circle 22(1) Modi Income Tax 303, Modi House, Linking Vs. Department, Road, Khar West, Piramal Chamber, Mumbai-400 052 Dr. Ss Rao Marg, Parel, Mumbai 0 400 012 Pan/Gir No. Aahpm2793F (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ashwani Kumar A/W Ms. Deepali Aggarwal, Ld. Ars Revenue By Shri Umashankar Prasad, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 12.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 19.02.2026

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 94(7)Section 94(8)

Ladderup Finance Limited, Mumbai vs. Circle 14(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 7404/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarladderup Finance Circle 14(1)(1), Limited Mumbai 1St Floor Hallmark Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Business Plaza, Mumbai-400 020 Gurunanak Hospital Road, Bandra (East), Mumbai- 400051 Pan/Gir No. Aaacl0882G (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rushabh Mehta Revenue By Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 27.01.2026

Section 10(34)Section 10(38)Section 111ASection 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)

Unipatch Rubber Limited, Delhi vs. DCIT/ACIT, Circle 25(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4439/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shrimahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shrisanjay Awasthiआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.4439/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 बनाम Unipatch Rubber Limited, Dcit/Acit, Building No.10, Community Centre, Vs. Circle 25(1), Saket, Delhi. Delhi. Pan No.Aaacu0325P अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 250oSection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 80ISection 94(7)

Shyam Greenfield Developer Private Limited, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 2(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1164/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Oct 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 250Section 253(3)Section 253(5)

M/S. Kanak Projects Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 8(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1283/KOL/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Sept 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Sonjoy Sarmam/S Kanak Projects Limited, Vs Dcit, Circle-8(1), Kolkata Salarpuria Jajodia @ Co. 7, Chittaranjan Avenue, Kolkata-700072 Pan No. Aabck 1255 F (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Sujoy Sen, Ar रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Kapil Mandal, Addl.Cit-Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 18/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 19 /09/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manjunatha G, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 07.04.2025 Pertaining To Assessment Year 2013-2014. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee E-Filed Its Return Of Income For Assessment Year 2013-2014 On 26.09.2013 Declaring Total Income At Rs.6,11,89,350/-. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny & The Assessment Has Been Completed U/S.143(3) Of The Act On 09.03.2016 & Determined The Total Income At Rs.6,77,12,890/- By, Inter Alia, Making Additions Towards Disallowance Of Capital Expenditure For Rs.52,58,956/-, Rental Income Not Offered To Tax At Rs.8,77,945/-, Disallowance Of Excess Depreciation At Rs.3,75,000/- & Addition Towards Dividend Stripping Income U/S.94(7) Of The Act For Rs.1,636/-.

For Appellant: Shri Sujoy Sen, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kapil Mandal, Addl.CIT-Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 94(7)