Itxa/2528/2011 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax -4 Mumbai v. Kotak Securities Ltd

sas IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL (LOD) NO.2910 OF 2009 The Commissioner of Income Tax-4, Mumbai ..Appellant. V/s. Kotak Securities Ltd. ..Respondent. Mr. Vimal Gupta for the appellant. Mr. Atul K. Jasani for the respondent. CORAM : J.P. DEVADHAR AND A.A. SAYED, JJ. DATED : 21ST OCTOBER, 2011 P.C. :- 1.Three questions of law are raised by the revenue in this appeal, which read thus :- (a)Whether on the facts and in the circumstance of the case and in law, the Tribunal was right in holding that depreciation u/s.32 of the Income Tax amounting to Rs.21,39,277/- is allowable on the membership card of the Bombay Stock Exchange ?law, the Tribunal was right in holding that depreciation u/s.32 of the Income Tax amounting to Rs.21,39,277/- is allowable on the membership card of the Bombay Stock Exchange ? (b)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in holding that trade / 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 trade / 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 ? (c)Whether on th facts and in the circumstance of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in holding that V-SAT charges and law, the Tribunal was justified in holding that V-SAT charges and leasing 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 ? 2.Counsel for the parties state that as regards the first question is concerned, the same is covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Techno Shares and Stocks Ltd. V/s. CIT reported in 327 ITR 323 (SC). Accordingly, the first question cannot be entertained. 3.As regards the second question is concerned, counsel for the parties state that similar question raised by the revenue in the case of CIT V/s. M/s. Kotak Securities Ltd. in Income Tax Appeal No.3111 of 2009 has been answered by us today i.e. 21th October, 2011 in favour of the assessee. Hence the second question cannot be entertained. 4.As regards the third question is concerned, the counsel for the parties state that similar question raised by the revenue in the case of CIT V/s. Angel Capital & Debit Market Ltd. [Income Tax Appeal (L) no.475 of 2011] has been rejected by us on 28th July, 2011. Therefore, the third question cannot be entertained. 5.The appeal is accordingly disposed of with no order as to costs. (A.A. SAYED, J.) (J.P. DEVADHAR, J.)