The Commissioner Of Income Tax – 4, Mumbai v. M/S.satco Securities & Financial Services Limited
High Court
14 Sep 2009 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax – 4, Mumbai v. M/S.satco Securities & Financial Services Limited
Date of order
14 Sep 2009
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Allowed
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Income Tax – 4, Mumbai v. M/S.satco Securities & Financial Services Limited, the High Court (2009) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
Issue: The appeal was admitted on 22-7-2008 on the following substantial questions of law : a)Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal was correct in holding that the membership of Bombay Stock Exchange is a capital asset even though as per the decision of the Hon’ble Supr...
Decision: 3.The appeal is accordingly allowed 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
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1594 OF 2007
The Commissioner of Income Tax – 4, Mumbai
..Appellant.
Versus
M/s.Satco Securities & Financial Services Limited..Respondent.
Mr.Suresh Kumar for the appellant.
Ms.Preeti Shukla i/by Mr.Ravindra G. Bhat for the respondent.
CORAM : V.C. DAGA & J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ.
DATE : 14TH SEPTEMBER 2009
P.C. :
1.Heard learned counsel for the parties. The appeal was admitted on 22-7-2008 on the following substantial questions of law :
a)Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal was correct in holding that the membership of Bombay Stock Exchange is a capital asset even though as per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Stock Exchange, Ahmedabad V/s. ACIT; and Bombay High Court in the case of the Stock Exchange Bombay V/s. V.S. Kandalgaonkar ACIT and others; membership of the Stock Exchange is only a personal privilege granted by the Stock Exchange to the member ?
b)Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal failed to consider that the basic ingredients of ownership are not present in the BSE Membership Card and, therefore, the assessee cannot claim to be its owner for the purpose of claiming depreciation on the same.
2.The above questions of law are squarely covered by the Division Bench Judgment of this Court in group of mattes, lead appeal being Income Tax Appeal (L)–No.971 of 2006 (Commissioner of Income Tax 4 V/s. M/s.Techno Shares & StocksLimited) decided on 11th September 2009. For the reasons recorded therein, both the questions are answered in favour of the revenue and against the assessee.
3.The appeal is accordingly allowed with 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.