Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 24 (0.54 seconds)

Maxopp Investment Ltd.. vs Commr.Of I.T New Delhi on 12 February, 2018

39. In those cases, where shares are held as stock-in-trade, the main purpose is to trade in those shares and earn profits therefrom. However, we are not concerned with those profits which would naturally be treated as 'income' under the head 'profits and gains from business and profession'. What happens is that, in the process, when the shares are held as 'stock-in-trade', certain dividend is also earned, though incidentally, which is also an income. However, by virtue of Section 10 (34) of the Act, this dividend income is not to be included in the total income and is exempt from tax. This triggers the applicability of Section 14A of the Act which is based on the theory of apportionment of expenditure between taxable and non-taxable income as held in Walfort Share & Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd. case. Therefore, to that extent, depending upon the facts of each case, the expenditure incurred in acquiring those shares will have to be apportioned.
Supreme Court of India Cites 34 - Cited by 80 - A K Sikri - Full Document

M/S. Kalyan Awas Vikas Pvt. Ltd. , Jaipur vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... on 11 September, 2020

Bimal Roy Soni, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Jaipur The hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of M/S. Marg Limited vs Commissioner Of Income Tax (Judgment dt. 30.09.2020 in TCA Nos.41 to 43 / 2017) has also held that "The legal position, as interpreted above by various judgments and again reiterated by us in this judgment, remains that the disallowance of expenditure incurred to earn exempted income cannot exceed exempted income itself and neither the Assessee nor the Revenue are entitled to take a deviated view of the matter".
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Jaipur Cites 18 - Cited by 10 - Full Document

The Commissioner Of Income Tax I vs Uti Bank Ltd Through Its Manager on 1 September, 2022

CIT v. UTI BANK LTD [2022] 289 Taxman 238 (SC) South Indian Bank Ltd. CIT [2021] 283 Taxman 128 (SC) 10 ITA Nos. 239 & 240/JP/2022 Bimal Roy Soni, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Jaipur Principal CIT v. Gujrat Fluorochemicals Ltd. [2022] 284 Taxman 451 (SC) It was held and approved by the hon'ble Supreme Court that where interest free own funds available with assessee exceeded its investments in tax free securities, investments would be presumed to be made out of assessee's own funds and proportionate disallowance was not warranted under section 14A.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 2 - Cited by 10 - J K Maheshwari - Full Document
1   2 3 Next