9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (10) TMI 279X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 09 declaring total income of Rs. 1,02,63,170/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and thereafter the assessment was framed under Section 143 (3) vide order dated 21.11.2011 and the total income was determined at Rs. 1,75,85,650/-. Aggrieved by the order of Assessing Officer, Assessee carried the matter before CIT(A). CIT(A) vide order dated 22.10.2012 granted partial relief to the assessee. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of CIT(A), the Revenue is now in appeal before us and the Assessee has also filed a CO. 4. The only ground of Revenue is with respect to deletion of disallowance of Rs. 72,86,348/- under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act being transaction charges paid to BSE and NSE. 5. During the course of Assessment proceedings, Assessing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h payment. The appellant is a member of BSE & NSE and in this capacity is making payment of transaction charges to BSE and NSE, Hence, the appellant was required to make TDS on these payments. The appellant's claim that such TDS is to be made only if the person making the payment of transaction charge is making such payment on share trading done by itself on the stock exchange is not correct. The payment of transaction charges are made by the brokers to the stock exchanges on account of trading done through them and not only on the account of trading made on their own behalf. Hence, it is held that the appellant was liable for making TDS on transaction charges paid to BSE and NSE, and hence, the AO has rightly invoked the provisions of 40(a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rned D.R. 9. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. We find that the Hon. Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sikander Khan Tunvar Tax Appeal No. 905 and Ors of 2012 order dated 2.05.2013 has held as under:- "38 In the result, we are of the opinion that section 40(a)(ia) would cover not only to the amounts which are payable as on 31st March of a particular year but also which are payable at any time during the year of course as long as the other requirements of the said provision exist. In that context in our opinion the decision of Special Bench of Tribunal in the case of Merilyn Shipping and Transport vs. ACIT (supra), does not lay down correct law." 10. CIT(A) while granting relief had relied on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
