2015 (5) TMI 122 - HC - Income Tax

Disallowance u/s 40(a)(ib) - deduction of STT claimed by the Assessee - ITAT allowed the claim - Held that - The requisite details of the clients have been provided by the assessee clearly. If the parties are clients of the assessee and from whom brokerage is collected by raising bills, then, there is no dispute that it is this very tax which is collected by the assessee. In the circumstance, the Tribunal s order on this point does not raise any substantial question of law. Even in relation to the second question we do not find that the Tribunal, in any manner, concluded the matter. The Tribunal merely invited attention of the parties that the claim of error trade has not been examined either by the Assessing Officer or by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The assessee s advocate had no objection to sending back the matter to the assessing officer for necessary verification. Thereafter the Tribunal found that the matter requires fresh examination and in case loss is found to have occurred on account of error trade conducted by assessee on behalf of clients, then the claim will have to be accepted as business loss if the law laid down by the Tribunal in the case of Parker Securities Ltd. (2006 (5) TMI 110 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-B ) applies. Such direction far from concluding the matter only highlights the aspects of the case and particularly in relation to non consideration of the claim of error trade. If that is the issue which has been restored to the assessing officer for necessary examination, then, it would be open for the revenue to point out that the loss if any has not occurred on account of error trade and conducted by the assessee. No substantial question of law. - Decided against revenue. Disallowance u/s 14A and Rule 8D - Held that - The issue is squarely covered by the case of Godrej and Boyce Mfg. Co. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (2010 (8) TMI 77 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT ). Disallowance of charges paid to Stock Exchanges - non deduction to tax at sources - ITAT allowed claim - Held that - The judgment of this Court in case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Kotak Securities Ltd. ( 2011 (10) TMI 24 - Bombay High Court) covers the question. The party with which we are concerned is the Stock Exchange and transaction charges paid by the assessee being in the nature of fees for technical services, that this question need not detain us. It stands answered in terms of the judgment of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Kotak Securities Ltd. - Decided against revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge to the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 29th June, 2012.
2. Disallowance made by the Assessing Officer under section 40(a)(ib) of the deduction of STT claimed by the Assessee.
3. Restoration of the issue regarding the loss incurred on account of error trade for fresh examination.
4. Disallowance of expenses relating to earning of exempt income based on the decision of Bombay High Court.
5. Deletion of disallowance made by the Assessee to Stock Exchanges without deduction to tax at sources.

Analysis:

1. The appeal challenges the Tribunal's order regarding the deduction of security transaction tax (STT) claimed by the Assessee under section 40(a)(ib). The appellant argues that the Tribunal wrongly deleted the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer, contending that the deduction of STT cannot be claimed as per the clear language of the provision. However, the Court finds that the deduction claimed was of STT collected by the Assessee on behalf of clients, which was included in the bill raised on clients, and thus, the deduction is justified.

2. The issue of loss incurred on account of error trade was sent back to the assessing officer for fresh examination. The Tribunal did not conclude the matter but highlighted the need for further verification. The Court finds that the Tribunal's direction for re-examination does not raise a substantial question of law, as it merely emphasizes the need for verification and consideration of the claim of error trade.

3. Regarding the disallowance of expenses related to earning exempt income, the Court notes that the decision of the Bombay High Court relied upon is under challenge in the Supreme Court. The Court finds that the issue is not substantial as it is covered by relevant provisions and previous judgments.

4. The deletion of disallowance made by the Assessee to Stock Exchanges without deduction of tax at sources is also challenged. The Court refers to a previous judgment that covers the issue, stating that the transaction charges paid by the Assessee to Stock Exchanges are in the nature of fees for technical services. The Court finds no merit in this challenge and dismisses the appeal.

5. In conclusion, the Court finds that none of the questions raised are substantial questions of law. The appeal is dismissed, and no costs are awarded.

This detailed analysis covers the various issues raised in the judgment, providing a comprehensive overview of the Court's findings and decisions on each matter.