2014 (5) TMI 282 - HC - Income Tax

Transaction charges paid to the stock exchanges - fees for technical services - TDS u/s 194J - Prior decision of Court not put into light Issues already rejected - Held that - The decision in Kisan Ratilal Choksey Share & Securities Pvt. Ltd. 2014 (5) TMI 192 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT and Commissioner of Income-tax - 4(3) Versus Kotak Securities Ltd. 2011 (10) TMI 24 - Bombay High Court followed - Major two main issues were there in the earlier appeal as to the transaction charges paid to the stock exchanges and fees for technical services TDS u/s 194J which were rejected by the Court in appeal - The Revenue insists in arguing Appeals in the manner and for subsequent Assessment Years - Revenue ought to have been fair and brought to the notice of the Court the fact that its Appeal challenging the very findings and conclusions for prior Assessment Years has been dismissed by the Court on merits thus, there is no substantial question of law arises for consideration Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding Assessment Year 2006-07.

Analysis:
The High Court of Bombay heard an appeal challenging the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal for the Assessment Year 2006-07. The Tribunal had based its decision on a previous order related to the same assessee for the Assessment Year 2005-06. The Revenue's appeal against the Tribunal's decision was dismissed by the Court, citing precedents in other cases. The Division Bench, following their own previous order, dismissed the present appeal, emphasizing that the Revenue should have acknowledged the dismissal of its previous appeals before pursuing the current one. The Court found the present appeal to be an abuse of process and imposed costs on the Revenue amounting to Rs.1,00,000. The Court highlighted the need for fairness and transparency in presenting appeals to the Court.

The Court expressed disappointment in the Revenue's persistence in arguing appeals without acknowledging the dismissal of previous challenges. The Court emphasized that the Revenue should have disclosed the outcomes of prior appeals challenging similar findings. The Court considered the present appeal to lack any substantial legal questions and deemed it an abuse of the court process. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal and imposed costs on the Revenue, stressing the importance of transparency and honesty in presenting cases before the Court.

In a subsequent mention of the matter, the Revenue's counsel requested the Court to recall the direction to pay costs to the Assessee. The counsel assured the Court of compliance with judicial orders in the future, including providing necessary explanations in all appeal memos regarding challenges to prior Tribunal orders. Based on this assurance and the Assessee's acceptance, the Court recalled the direction to pay costs without making any other alterations. The application for recall was disposed of with no additional costs incurred.