Click Here For Best Books On Taxation & Law. Upto 60% Off On Select Titles. Free Shipping & Pay On Delivery!
 

Click Here To Subscribe To Our Free Newsletter

Home › All Judgements › CIT vs. Wallfort Shares & Stocks (Bombay High Court)

CIT vs. Wallfort Shares & Stocks (Bombay High Court)

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: September 23, 2008 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE:
CITATION:

Where the assessee bought units of a mutual fund, received tax-free dividend thereon and immediately thereafter redeemed the units and claimed the difference between the cost price and redemption value as a loss and the same had been upheld by a Five Member Special Bench of the Tribunal as a genuine loss, HELD affirming the order of the Special Bench that:

(i) S. 94(7) was inserted prospectively w.e.f. 1.4.2002 to disallow dividend stripping losses. If the argument of the Revenue that even transactions prior to s. 94(7) can be disallowed is accepted, it will render s. 94(7) redundant and also lead to anomalous results.

(ii) CBDT Circular No. 14 of 2001 makes it clear that prior to s. 94(7) the loss was allowable. This Circular is binding on the revenue and they cannot argue contrary to that.

(iii) Even otherwise it was not established that the motive was to earn a loss. The allegation that there was complicity between the mutual funds, the brokers and the assessee was also without merit. Mc Dowell 154 ITR 148 (SC) and Azadi Bachao Andolan 263 ITR 706 (SC) considered.

(iv) The alternative argument that the loss should be treated as expenditure incurred to earn dividend and disallowed u/s 14A is also without merit.

Related Posts:

  • S. Rajalakshmi vs. ITO (Bombay High Court) The reopening of assessment u/s 147 on the basis of information in the form of observations of ITAT is on sound footing and which constitutes a tangible material for the purpose of reopening as the assessee did not file her return of income as required u/s 139(1) of the Act…
  • CIT vs. Viksit Engineering Ltd (Bombay High Court) Thus two port-folios one for "Investment" and other for "Trading". Besides for the earlier years the Revenue accepted the claim of short term capital gain. Thus the income has to be taxed as short term capital gain. We are of the view that respondent holding the shares for a short…
  • PCIT vs. M. J. Exports Pvt. Ltd (Bombay High Court) All this effort and time would have been saved if the Tribunal had made specific reference to contrary decisions or not stated so in the absence of referring to the citations. Therefore, we would request the Tribunal to be specific about the decisions and make a mention of the citation…
  • CST vs. Crescendo Associates (Bombay High Court) The service of maintenance, management or repair, rendered by any person to any other person is a taxable service but in the context and backdrop in which the issue arises before us, we do not think that a taxable service is rendered. The Revenue does not wish to take into…
  • Ventura Textiles Ltd vs. CIT (Bombay High Court) Concealment of particulars of income was not the charge against the appellant, the charge being furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. As discussed above, it is trite that penalty cannot be imposed for alleged breach of one limb of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act while penalty proceedings were initiated for breach…
  • CIT vs. Gundecha Builders (Bombay High Court) In the present facts it is undisputed that the respondent assessee is in the business of development of real estate projects and letting of property is not the business of the respondent assessee. In both the decisions relied upon by Mr. Pinto i.e. Chennai Properties (supra) and Rayala Corporation (supra),…

Related Judgements

  1. CIT vs. Vardhaman Polytex (P & H High Court) (Full Bench) 

    (i) In considering whether the interest paid by an assessee on loans raised for acquisition of new asset, before the same was first put to use, is to be added towards the cost of the asset or the same is … CIT vs. Vardhaman Polytex (P & H…
  2. Jamna Auto Industries vs. CIT (P & H High Court) (Full Bench) 

    While damages or penalty which are compensatory in nature are allowable as a deduction u/s 37(1) of the Act, damages which are penal in nature and in respect of infraction of law are not allowable as a business expenditure. Amounts … Jamna Auto Industries vs. CIT (P &…
  3. Peninsula Land vs. CIT (Bombay High Court) 

    An order passed by the AO to give consequential effect to an appeallate order of an earlier year is not an order passed under section 154 and consequently the time limit of section 154(7) does not apply. Read more ›
  4. SET Satellite (Singapore) vs. DDIT (Bombay High Court) 

    The effect of Article 7 (1) of the DTAA and Circular No. 23 dated 23.7.1969 is that the income of a non-resident which is neither directly nor indirectly attributable to the PE cannot be brought to tax.
    Read more ›
  5. CCE vs. Shruti Colorants (Bombay High Court) 

    As s. 35-G of the Central Excise Act (and s. 130 of the Customs Act) provides that an appeal to the High Court shall be filed within 180 days of the receipt of the order appealed against and there is no provision for condonation of delay the court has…
0 comments on “CIT vs. Wallfort Shares & Stocks (Bombay High Court)”
1 Pings/Trackbacks for "CIT vs. Wallfort Shares & Stocks (Bombay High Court)"
  1. S. 14A & Rule 8D: A comprehensive analysis | Articles says:
    August 28, 2010 at 5:27 pm

    […] Wallfort Shares & Stock Brokers Ltd- vs- I.T.O. 310 ITR 421 (Bom) […]