9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (5) TMI 814X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Income-tax (LTU) Versus DICGC Ltd. [2012 (4) TMI 240 - ITAT MUMBAI] it was held that both parties has proceeded on the footing that tax was not deductible u/s 194J - the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) could not be invoked - The VSAT and Lease Line Charges are not payments, which come in within the domain of “fees for technical services” and they are also not for “any work” done by the BSE or BSE for the member broker - The stock exchange does not provide any managerial services and the fees paid by the member to the Stock Exchange is not for any technical services rendered – thus, TDS is not required to be made on such payments – there was no infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) – Decided against Revenue. - I.T.A. No.1988/M/2011 - - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s rendered by the brokers are not standard services but services that has been developed to cater to the needs of the broker community to facilitate trading. v. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT (A) has overlooked the fact that the brokers have in subsequent years themselves started deducting the TDS on such payments and that there is no reason to give a different treatment in this year. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT (A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,64,521/- made u/s 14A read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Act by Assessing Officer. 3. At the outset, Ld Counsel for the assessee brought our attention and mentioned that the assessee‟ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the other hand, Ld DR fairly admitted the error crept in arising the groundno.2 before the Tribunal. 6. We have heard both the parties and perused the orders of the Revenue Authorities in this regard. On hearing both the parties and considering the patent error crept in, we are of the opinion that the ground no.2 raised by the Revenue should be dismissed. As such, relevant issue relating to disallowance u/s 14A is already decided by the Tribunal in assessee‟s appeal. Accordingly, the said ground is dismissed as infructuous. 7. Further, ld Counsel for the assessee brought our attention to ground no.1, which contains 5 sub-grounds (i) to (v) and mentioned that all the grounds revolve around the disallowance of Rs. 3,75,365/- in re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Nos. 2361 2524/M/2011 (AYs 2007-08 2008-09), order dated 3.2.2012. He also filed another decision of the Tribunal in the case of ACIT vs. Twenty First Century Shares Securities Ltd [2013] 39 taxmann.com 176 (Mumbai-Trib.) and read out the contents of para 7 of the said order which reads as under: 7. So far disallowance relating to transaction charges is concerned, the co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in Asstt. CIT v. DICGC Ltd.[2013] 33 taxmann.com 634 (Mum), in para 15 of the judgment has observed as under (page 200) : The second part of the argument is that the hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Kotak Securities Ltd.[2012] 340 ITR 333 (Bom) has observed in para 31 that both parties has proceeded on the fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as well as the cited decisions mentioned above. On perusal of the order of the CIT (A) in general, para 1.3 in particular we find that the CIT (A) has decided the appeal basing on the above cited decisions and the same is relevant here which reads as under: 1.3. I have considered the facts and peused the material on record. VSAT charges and Lease Line Charges are paid by the members of stock exchange in lieu of infrastructure and trading facilities provide by the stock exchange. The VSAT and Lease Line Charges are not payments, which come in within the domain of fees for technical services and they are also not for any work done by the BSE or BSE for the member broker. The stock exchange does not provide any managerial services and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
