Case LawHigh Court › Itxa/2566/2011 Of The Commissioner Of In...

Itxa/2566/2011 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax -4 Mumbai v. Padmakshi Financial Services Pvt. Ltd

High Court 18 Nov 2011 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Itxa/2566/2011 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax -4 Mumbai v. Padmakshi Financial Services Pvt. Ltd
Date of order
18 Nov 2011
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Other

Case summary

In Itxa/2566/2011 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax -4 Mumbai v. Padmakshi Financial Services Pvt. Ltd, the High Court (2011) decided the matter.

Decision: 5.The appeal is disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.

The order — as passed by the High Court

sas IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTIONINCOME TAX APPEAL (LOD) NO.471 OF 2011 The Commissioner of Income Tax-4, Mumbai ..Appellant. V/s. M/s. Padmakashi Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. ..Respondent. Mr. Vimal Gupta for the appellant. Mr. Jitendra Jain with Jas Sanghvi i/b. PDS Legal for the respondent. CORAM : J.P. DEVADHAR AND A.R. JOSHI, JJ. DATED : 18TH NOVEMBER, 2011 P.C. :- 1.Three questions of law are raised by the revenue in this appeal. 2.As regards questions (b) & (c) are concerned, it is seen from the order of the Tribunal that the matter has been remanded back to the file of the assessing officer for fresh decision in accordance with law. Since the issues are restored to the file of the assessing officer for fresh consideration, we are not inclined to entertain questions (b) & (c). However, it is made clear that all the contentions of both the parties are kept open to be agitated before the assessing officer. 3.The appeal is admitted on question (a), which reads as under:- “ Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal has erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs.15,78,745/- made in respect of leaseline and transaction charges without appreciating the facts that these were composite charges for professional and technical services rendered by the stock exchange to its members and the assessee has failed to deduct TDS thereon ? ” 4.Counsel for the parties states that in view of the decision of this Court in the case of CIT V/s. M/s. Kotak Securities Ltd. [Income Tax Appeal No.3111 of 2009] decided on 21[st] October, 2011, the issue relating to leaseline charges is answered in favour of the assessee and the issue relating to the transaction charges is answered in favour of the revenue. Accordingly, the first question is answered accordingly. 5.The appeal is disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs. (A.R. JOSHI, J.) (J.P. DEVADHAR, J.)
Facing a similar income-tax issue?
Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.
✅ File an income-tax appeal (CIT(A)/ITAT) → 💬 Ask our CA
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation. Full disclaimer & Terms.
Contact Careers Media / Press · Privacy Terms Refund Cancellation Cookies Disclaimer
© 2026 EaseValue Advisors LLP · LLPIN ACN-4920 · Jaipur, Rajasthan