9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 659X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that:- CIT(A) warranting interference at the instance of the Department inasmuch as the learned CIT(A) accepted the claim of the assessee holding that the assessee was allowed to take the cost of acquisition as per the specific provisions of section 55(2)(ab) of the Act. DR has not brought anything on record contrary to the above noted specific provisions of the Act. - Decided against revenue. - ITA no.1589/Mum./2012 - - - Dated:- 14-5-2015 - SHRI R. C. SHARMA AND SHRI SANJAY GARG, JJ. For The Revenue : Shri Love Kumar For The Assessee : Shri Anuj Kisnadwala ORDER Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member The present appeal preferred by the Revenue is directed against the impugned order dated 2nd December 2011, passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) 9, Mumbai, for the assessment year 2008 09. The grounds raised by the Revenue are as follows: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law has erred in allowing payment of ₹ 7.20 lakh to jobbers disallowed under section 40(a)(ia), when no TDS was deducted. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law has erred in allowing to take cost of the acquisition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erally the margins required are also very large. VIII. The bolt/access to exchange and the office space is provided by the member. The Assessing Officer held that the payments made are in lieu of services rendered for carrying out certain work and the payments made falls within the meaning of section 194C. Since the assessee has not deducted the tax, therefore, the total amount paid for ₹ 7.20 lakh was disallowed. 4. The learned CIT(A) reversed the order of the Assessing Officer and allowed the claim of the assessee while following the orders of the Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, in DCIT v/s M/s. Asset Alliance Securities Pvt. Ltd., ITA no.1488/Mum./2009, order dated 16th July 2010, and M/s. Total Securities Ltd. v/s DCIT, in ITA no.7123/Mum./ 2008, order 31st December 2010. Aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The learned Departmental Representative, before us, relied on the order of the Assessing Officer, whereas, the learned Counsel for the assessee supported the order so passed by the learned CIT(A). 6. We have considered the submissions of rival parties and have also perused the material available on record. From the impugned or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... res and securities will be shared between the assessee and him in the ratio of 50 : 50. Clause 3 provides that all transactions, dealings and other formalities will be carried out in the name of the assessee only. Clause 4 provides that the assessee will be solely entitled to receive and keep any kind of dividend, interest and other corporate benefits during the course of transactions carried out by Mr Amit Zaveri. Clause 5 obliges the assessee to pay all margin monies to the Stock Exchange for the transactions carried out by Mr Amit Zaveri in the name of the assessee. More importantly it provides that all applicable expenses will be deducted / added before the distribution of the profit / loss as agreed upon in clause 2 above . Clause 6 says that the parties will abide by the Rules prescribed by NSE and SEBI and clause 7 provides for discontinuance of the agreement by giving one day s notice. All the agreements filed before us are identically worded. It has been argued on behalf of the assessee on the basis of these agreements that there was a joint venture between it and the jobbers or arbitragers for trading in shares and securities in the Stock Exchanges on the company s own a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ter dated 11th March 2008 filed before the AO. The details have been given under the head Details of jobbers / arbitragers along with income earned from jobbing and arbitrage activity . The assessee has furnished the names of the jobbers, their Permanent Account Numbers and addresses. Similar details have also been given in respect of arbitragers. The gross amount received in respect of the business carried on by the assessee through the jobbers / arbitragers is also given, jobber-wise and arbitrager-wise, from which the share of the jobber / arbitrager has been deducted and the balance has been taken as the assessee s share of profit in the joint ventures. The total share of the jobber out of the gross receipts and paid to them comes to ₹ 1,42,24,997/- and the total share paid to the arbitragers came to ₹ 19,46,576/-. The aggregate of the two comes to ₹ 1,61,71,573/- which is the amount that has been disallowed by the AO by invoking section 194C read with section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The facts show that there were separate joint ventures entered into by the assessee with several jobbers / arbitragers and payments have been made to them under such agreements and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
