Itxa/1346/2011 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax -4 Mumbai v. Prashant J. Patel

itxa1346-11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1346 OF 2011 The Commissioner of Income Tax-4, Mumbai ..Appellant. V/s. Prashant J. Patel ..Respondent. Mr.Suresh Kumar for the appellant. Mr. Sanjiv M. Shah for the respondent. CORAM : J.P. DEVADHAR AND M.S. SANKLECHA, JJ.DATED : 14TH JANUARY, 2013 P.C. :- 1.This appeal is filed by the revenue challenging the order dated 15[th] September, 2010 of the Tribunal for the assessment year 2006-07. 2.The appellant has proposed the following questions of law for consideration in this appeal. (a)Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT was right in deleting the disallowance of Rs.10,04,558/- made in respect of VSAT, Transaction charges and lease line charges without realizing the fact that these were composite charges for professional and technical services rendered by the exchange to its members and the assessee has failed to deduct TDS thereon ? (b)Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT was right in deleting the addition of penalty of Rs.2,49,046/- without considering that explanation to Section 37(1) is applicable on payments to stock exchange ?the ITAT was right in deleting the addition of penalty of Rs.2,49,046/- without considering that explanation to Section 37(1) is applicable on payments to stock exchange ? (c)Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT was right in deleting the disallowance of Rs.6,28,172/- being expenses incurred in earning the tax free dividend income ?the ITAT was right in deleting the disallowance of Rs.6,28,172/- being expenses incurred in earning the tax free dividend income ? (d)Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT was justified in holding that in computation of disallowance u/s.14A, there is no provision in rule 8D of IT rules for reduction of current liability ?the ITAT was justified in holding that in computation of disallowance u/s.14A, there is no provision in rule 8D of IT rules for reduction of current liability ? 2.So far as question (a) is concerned, the advocate for the appellant and the respondent state that the transaction charges appearing in question (a) appears to be by mistake and the issue in this appeal is in respect of disallowance of VSAT and lease lane charges. Further, advocate for the parties agree that questions (a) & (b) stand covered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue by the decision of this Court in Income Tax Appeal (L) No.475 of 2011 [The Income Tax Commissioner, Mumbai City-4 V/s. Angel Capital & Debit Market Ltd] by an order dated 28[th] July, 2011. In view of the above, we see no reason to entertain questions (a) & (b) as proposed by the revenue. 3.So far as the questions ((c) & (d) are concerned, the Tribunal has followed the decision of this Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. V/s. DCIT reported in [2010] 328 ITR 81 (Bom). Further, the Tribunal has remanded the matter to the assessing officer to apply the decision of this Court in the matter of Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. (supra). In view of the above, we see no reason to entertain the questions (c) & (d) as proposed by the revenue in this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. (M.S. SANKLECHA, J.) (J.P. DEVADHAR, J.)