Itxa/3083/2009 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax 4 Mumbai v. Mhd Securities Ltd
High Court
21 Oct 2011 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Itxa/3083/2009 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax 4 Mumbai v. Mhd Securities Ltd
Date of order
21 Oct 2011
Assessment year(s)
2005-06
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Itxa/3083/2009 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax 4 Mumbai v. Mhd Securities Ltd, the High Court (2011) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: For the reasons stated therein, the present appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Sections referenced in this judgment
sas
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.3083 OF 2009
The Commissioner of Income Tax-4, Mumbai
..Appellant.
V/s.
MHD Securities Ltd.
..Respondent.
Mr. Vimal Gupta for the appellant.
Mr. S.C. Tiwari & Meghna Butala for the respondent.
CORAM : J.P. DEVADHAR AND A.A. SAYED, JJ.
DATED : 21ST OCTOBER, 2011
P.C. :-
1.The question of law raised by the revenue in this appeal reads thus :-
" Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is justified in allowing the deduction of expenses claimed by the assessee of stock exchange transaction charges amounting to Rs.47,51,711/- even though such transaction charges are technical services falling within the purview of Section 194J of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and since the assessee has not decided tax at source from such technical service payments, the claim of the assessee is not allowable u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ? "
2.The counsel for the parties state that similar question raised by the revenue in the case of CIT V/s. M/s. Kotak Securities Ltd. [Income Tax Appeal No.3111 of 2009] relating to AY 2005-06 has been decided by us today i.e. 21st October, 2011 in favour of the assessee. For the reasons stated therein, the present appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
(A.A. SAYED, J.)
(J.P. DEVADHAR, J.)
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.