9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (4) TMI 480X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ITAT justified in deleting the disallowance of Client Assistant Charges amounting to Rs. 17,18,85,698/- paid to ICICI Bank Ltd. in spite of the fact that the assessee company has its own infrastructure facilities required for the purpose of the broking business having its own membership card of the stock exchange and its own premises etc. ? (ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT was justified in allowing the unrealized loss of Rs. 1,96,414/- in respect of open position in the Future and Options, though such a notional loss would be contingent in nature and cannot be allowed to be set off against the taxable income ? 2. With respect to Question No. 1, the Tribunal in its Order has explained ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... On the other hand, the appellant company is operating as a broker in equity market. Yet, the brokerage earned in the equity market by the appellant company has been transferred to the M/s. ICICI Bank in disguise of client assistant charges. Because names being similar, a normal customer gets confused and fails to differentiate between M/s. ICICI Securities and M/s. ICICI Bank Ltd. as two separate companies while operating three in one account of the M/s. ICICI Bank Ltd. and ultimately, M/s. ICICI Bank Ltd. is a major gainer because of large deposits are moved with the bank and it also earns de-mat charges from the customers of the appellant company. In view of the above, I am inclined to agree with the views of the Assessing Officer tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... kerage. Assuming that is so, we have not been shown any provision of any law, whereby the Respondent - Assessee could not have shared such alleged brokerage amount with ICICI Bank Ltd.. This would amount to sharing of brokerage and the business of the Respondent - Assessee, being a brokerage, the same would constitute expenditure incurred for the purposes of business. Therefore, even on this count, the disallowance cannot be sustained. The third reason is that ICICI Bank Ltd. is a gainer of large deposits and earns demat charges. Even in our view, that factor cannot be a consideration for disallowability of expenditure incurred by the Respondent - Assessee. 6. For all the above reasons, we do not find any substantial question of law arisin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
