9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 442X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y issue to be decided in this appeal of the revenue is as to whether the ld CITA was justified in deleting the disallowance of commission paid in the sum of Rs. 46,63,217/- in the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. The brief facts of this issue are that the assessee during the year under appeal had derived income from share broking, income from other sources and short term capital gain. The return of income for the Asst Year 2012-13 was filed by the assessee on 29.3.2013 declaring total income of Rs. 11,37,019/-. The assessee is a proprietor of DIC Finance & Securities and is carrying on business as share sub-broker. The assessee is registered with SEBI as sub-broker. The assessee's main broker is Shree Bahubali International Ltd whic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t proceedings for the Asst Year 2006-07 u/s 143(3) of the Act. The accounts of the assessee have been audited and no violation on account of TDS had been reported by the tax auditor in his report. The assessee has made payments to Remisiers appointed by the main broker a sum of Rs. 46,63,216.75 and the same has been paid to 48 parties. The list of Remisiers, as appointed by Shree Bahubali International Ltd to whom commission / brokerage was paid was enclosed before the ld CITA. It was further pleaded that from the audited accounts, it would be evident that the assessee does not have any other line of business apart from being a registered sub-broker and deals in security only i.e commission from deposit schemes, sub-brokerage from main brok ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ear 2009-10 by Hon'ble "A" Bench which was followed by the decision of the co-ordinate of the Hon'ble Tribunal Kolkata in the case of Smt. Usha Chowdhury in I.T.A. Nos. 511 & 512/Kol/2012, dated 22.10.2014, the disallowed made by the AO is hereby deleted." 6. Aggrieved, the revenue is in appeal before us. 7. We have heard the ld DR. None appeared on behalf of the assessee. We find that the assessee had paid commission to the remisiers in the sum of Rs. 46,63,217/- and claimed the same as deduction. The ld CITA had given a finding that the said payment was made by the assessee in relation to the security transactions carried out by him in the capacity of sub-broker and accordingly the said payment would not be liable for deduction of tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
