2016 (12) TMI 1487 - HC - Income Tax

TDS u/s 194J - transaction charges paid to the Stock Exchange - Held that - Revenue very fairly states that the issue raised herein is now concluded against the Revenue by virtue of the decision of Apex Court in CIT4 v/s. M/s. Kotak Securities Ltd 2016 (3) TMI 1026 - SUPREME COURT wherein it has been held that the transaction charges paid to the Stock Exchange are not subject to deduction of tax at source under Section 194J of the Act. Application of Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules to disallow expenses on exempt income - Held that - Tribunal followed the decision of this Court in Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd., v/s. DCIT 2010 (8) TMI 77 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT wherein it has been held that Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules can be invoked only from Assessment Year 2008-09 onwards. No substantial question of law.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the Tribunal correctly held that the deduction of TDS on transaction charges with the Stock Exchange was debatable prior to A. Y. 2006-07 and therefore the tax is not deductible at source for the impugned assessment year?
2. Whether the Tribunal correctly held that Section 194J is not applicable due to a bonafide reason to believe that tax was not deducted at source from the payment of transaction charges u/s. 194?

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The Revenue contended that the Tribunal erred in not deducting tax at source on transaction charges with the Stock Exchange for the relevant assessment year. However, Mr. Suresh Kumar, representing the Revenue, acknowledged that the issue had been settled against the Revenue by a decision of the Apex Court in CIT v/s. M/s. Kotak Securities Ltd. The Apex Court held that transaction charges paid to the Stock Exchange are not subject to deduction of tax at source under Section 194J of the Income Tax Act. Consequently, the Court found that the question raised by the Revenue did not present any substantial question of law and therefore dismissed it.

Issue 2:
Regarding the applicability of Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules for disallowing expenses on exempt income for assessment years prior to 2008-09, the Revenue contended that the Tribunal should have applied Rule 8D. However, the Tribunal's decision was based on the precedent set by the Bombay High Court in Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v/s. DCIT, where it was established that Rule 8D could only be invoked from Assessment Year 2008-09 onwards. As the impugned order aligned with the decision in Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd., the Court concluded that the question raised by the Revenue did not give rise to any substantial question of law and therefore was not entertained.

In conclusion, the High Court of Bombay dismissed the appeal, upholding the Tribunal's decisions on both issues. No costs were awarded in this matter.