Dividend Stripping rule applies to the entire dividend; failure to rebut AO's date-wise quantification sustains the disallowance.

Section 94(7) is interpreted as an anti-avoidance rule applying to the entire dividend or income received or receivable rather than being limited to any exempt portion; the provision permits ignoring losses attributable to specified purchases and sales made around the record date to neutralise tax arbitrage. The assessee bears the burden to prove non-applicability; where the Assessing Officer identifies transactions satisfying the timing conditions and provides a date-wise quantification, minor numerical discrepancies in alternative computations do not rebut the AO. On the facts presented, the AO's disallowance quantification of the dividend-stripping adjustment is sustained and the appeal challenging applicability and quantification is dismissed as to those grounds.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether section 94(7) of the Income tax Act, 1961 applies only to the exempt portion of dividend or to the entire dividend received; (ii) Whether the Assessing Officer's disallowance of Rs. 5,31,37,390 under section 94(7) (quantum of dividend stripping disallowance) is sustainable on facts and record.

Issue (i): Whether section 94(7) applies only to exempt dividend income or to the entire dividend received.

Analysis: The statutory text of section 94(7) refers to "dividend or income received or receivable" without any express limitation to exempt dividend. The legislative purpose is to neutralize tax avoidance by disregarding artificial losses attributable to receipt of dividend income. The existence of a separate taxing provision at concessional rates (section 115BBDA) does not alter the mischief the provision addresses because taxed dividend at a lower rate can still enable tax arbitrage when losses are set off against higher taxed gains. Explanatory memoranda and prior authoritative interpretation recognising the provision as an anti avoidance measure support applying section 94(7) to the whole dividend amount rather than restricting it to exempt portions.

Conclusion: Section 94(7) applies to the entire dividend received and not merely to the exempt portion.

Issue (ii): Whether the Assessing Officer's disallowance of Rs. 5,31,37,390 under section 94(7) is sustainable.

Analysis: The Assessing Officer identified transactions meeting the statutory timing conditions (purchase within three months prior to record date and sale within three months after record date for securities; analogous period for units) and computed dividend relatable to such transactions. The assessee furnished alternative computations and annexures but failed to satisfactorily rebut the AO's detailed tabulation and date wise analysis. The burden to demonstrate non applicability rests on the assessee. Minor numerical variances in mutual fund computation were immaterial. The AO's quantification is supported by the record and the statutory calendar day computation.

Conclusion: The disallowance of Rs. 5,31,37,390 under section 94(7) is sustained and the Assessing Officer's computation is upheld.

Final Conclusion: The appeal is dismissed insofar as it challenges the application and quantification of section 94(7); consequential grounds concerning interest and penalty are treated as consequential or premature and do not warrant separate adjudication on the merits.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 94(7) of the Income tax Act, 1961, as an anti avoidance provision addressing dividend stripping, applies to the entire dividend or income received or receivable and permits ignoring losses arising from specified purchases and sales to the extent of such entire dividend; the assessee bears the burden of proving non applicability and the Assessing Officer's date wise quantification of qualifying transactions will be upheld if not satisfactorily rebutted.

---