The Commissioner Of Income Tax-4, Mumbai v. Icici Web Trade Ltd

bsb IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 1800 OF 2011 The Commissioner of Income Tax-4, Mumbai … Appellant v/s ICICI Web Trade Ltd. … Respondent Mr.Vimal Gupta, senior counsel with Ms.Padma Divakar for the appellant. Ms.A. Vissanjee with Mr.S.J. Mehta for the respondent. CORAM: S.C. DHARMADHIKARI & G.S. KULKARNI, JJ. DATED : 2ND APRIL, 2014 P. C. : 1This appeal challenges the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 20[th] August, 2010 in two income tax appeals, one by the revenue and other by the assessee. By the common order the Tribunal has partly allowed both the appeals. 2In the submission of Mr.Vimal Gupta, learned senior counsel appearing for the revenue, this appeal raises a substantial question of law. He would submit that, in so far as the questions which are formulated by the revenue in the memo of appeal are concerned, the questions at paragraphs 4(A) and 4(B) are interlinked. Question No.4(C) has not been answered in favour of the revenue and particularly in the light of retrospective operation to Section 234D of the Income Tax Act, 1961. He also relies upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Income Tax Appeal No.2012 of 2011 delivered on 12[th] September, 2012. 3Having heard Mr.Gupta and Ms.A. Vissanjee at some length and finding that the Division Bench of this Court has dealt with the identical controversy, we hold that question No.4(C) as framed at page 5 deserves to be answered in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. It is accordingly answered and the appeal is disposed of to this extent in terms of the Division Bench judgment and the retrospective operation given to the statute. 4As far as the questions 4(A) and 4(B) at page 5 are concerned, though it is submitted by Mr.Gupta that they are substantial questions of law, we are unable to agree with him. In regard to this claim, after referring to all the materials the Tribunal has maintained some consistency in following its view for the prior assessment years. It has in paragraph 22 of the order under challenge held that certain customers have been introduced to the assessee through the ICICI Bank Ltd. and that is how there is increase in brokerage income. The increase is because of number of customers which have been sourced by ICICI Bank Ltd. Once there is no formula for such services or facilities and for which payment is made nor has the revenue brought on record any material to show that the expenditure in question was excess or unreasonable, we are of the view that the findings of fact rendered in paragraph 22 of the order under challenge raise no substantial question of law. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed so far as questions 4(A) and 4(B) are concerned. No costs. (G.S. KULKARNI, J.) (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J.)