In Itxa/5915/2010 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax -4 Mumbai v. Kjmc Capital Market Services Ltd, the High Court (2009) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
Issue: The appeal is admitted on the following substantial question of law:- “ Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was right in holding that depreciation u/s.32 of the Income Tax Act is allowable on the membership of the Stock Exchange ? " 2.By consent of part...
Decision: Having heard both counsel for the parties, appeal is allowed for the reasons recorded in the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Income Tax Appeal (L) No.971 of2006[CIT V/s.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.2311 OF 2009
The Commissioner of Income Tax
..Appellant.
V/s.
KJMC Capital Market Services Ltd.
..Respondent.
Mr. Vimal Gupta for appellant.
Mr. A.K. Jasani for respondent.
CORAM : V.C.DAGA AND J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ.DATED : 16TH OCTOBER, 2009.
P.C. :-
1.Heard learned counsel for the parties. Office objections are overruled. Registry is directed to register the appeal. The appeal is admitted on the following substantial question of law:-
“ Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was right in holding that depreciation u/s.32 of the Income Tax Act is allowable on the membership of the Stock Exchange ? "
2.By consent of parties, appeal is taken up for final hearing. Having heard both counsel for the parties, appeal is allowed for the reasons recorded in the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Income Tax Appeal (L) No.971 of2006[CIT V/s. M/s. Techno Shares & Stocks Ltd. (with other matters) decided on 11[th] September, 2009 since the questions sought to be raised relate to the depreciation with regard to BSE membership card. The question is answered in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. No order as to costs.
(J.P.DEVADHAR, J.)
(V.C.DAGA, 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.