Itxa/1088/2013 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax -4 Mumbai v. Money Care Securities And Financial Services Ltd

sas IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL (LOD) NO.2498 OF 2010 The Commissioner of Income Tax-4, Mumbai ..Appellant. V/s. M/s. Money Care Securities & Financial Services Ltd...Respondent. Mr.Vimal Gupta, Senior Advocate with Padma Divakar for the appellant. None for the respondent. CORAM : J.P. DEVADHAR AND M.S. SANKLECHA, JJ. DATED : 8TH MARCH, 2013 P.C. :- 1.In this appeal by the revenue for the assessment year 2005-06, following questions of law are raised for our consideration :- A.Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in holding that V-SAT, Lease Line and transaction charges paid to the stock exchange by the assessee company were allowable as a deduction from taxable income even though the assessee company had failed to deduct B.Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in holding that VSAT and lease line charges paid to the stock exchange by the assessee company were not paid in consideration of technical services rendered by the stock exchange within the meaning of Section 194-J read with Explanation 2 to Section 9(1) (vii) of the Income Tax Act ? C.Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in holding that transaction charges paid to the stock exchange by the assessee company were not paid in consideration of technical services rendered by the stock exchange within the meaning of Section 194J read with Explanation 2 to Section 9(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act ?law, the Tribunal was justified in holding that transaction charges paid to the stock exchange by the assessee company were not paid in consideration of technical services rendered by the stock exchange within the meaning of Section 194J read with Explanation 2 to Section 9(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act ? D.Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in allowing the claim of the assessee company towards bad debts amounting to Rs.11,65,666/- even though the principal amount of the debt has not been included in the computation of income as required by section 36(2) of the Income Tax Act ?law, the Tribunal was justified in allowing the claim of the assessee company towards bad debts amounting to Rs.11,65,666/- even though the principal amount of the debt has not been included in the computation of income as required by section 36(2) of the Income Tax Act ? 2.So far questions A, B & C are concerned, VSAT and lease line charges are covered against the revenue and in favour of the respondent-assessee by the decision of this Court in the matter of The Income Tax Commissioner, Mumbai City-4 V/s. Angel Capital & Debit Market Ltd. [Income Tax Appeal (L) No.475 of 2011] rendered on 28[th ] 3.So far as transaction charges are concerned, the same is covered in favour of the respondent-assessee and against the revenue by the decision of this court in the matter ofCIT V/s. Kotak Securities Ltd. reported in [2012] 340 ITR 333 (Bom). In the above view of the matter, we see no reason to entertain questions, A, B & C. 4.So far as question D is concerned, counsel for the parties state that the same is covered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee by the decision of this Court in the matter of CIT V/s. Shreyas S. Morakhia reported in [2012] 342 ITR 285. In this view of the matter, we see no reason to entertain question D. 5.Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. (M.S. SANKLECHA, J.) (J.P. DEVADHAR, J.)