The Commissioner Of Income Tax-4 v. M/S. Angel Broking Ltd

ASN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.393 OF 2011 The Commissioner of Income Tax-4. v. M/s. Angel Broking Ltd. ..Appellant. ..Respondent. Mr. Vimal Gupta, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Padma Divakar for the Appellant.Mr. S.G.Dalal for the Respondent. CORAM : J.P. DEVADHAR AND M.S. SANKLECHA, JJ. DATE : 4[th] December, 2012 PC: Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that the depositary charges paid by the assessee to the Stock Exchange were not fees for technical services and that for not deducting tax at source, no dis-allowance under Section 41(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 could be made is the question raised in this appeal. 2)The finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal is that the depository charges paid to the stock exchange by a share broker is in the nature of transaction charges. This Court in the case of CIT v. Kotak Securities Ltd. reported in [2012] 340 ITR 333 (Bom) has held that the transaction charges are fees for technical services covered under Section 194J, but no dis-allowance underSection 40(a)(ia) of the Act could be made upto the assessment year 2005-06. The assessment year involved herein is A.Y. 2005-06. Hence, in the light of the decision of this Court in the case of Kotak Securities Ltd. we see no reason to entertain the appeal. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed with no order as to costs. (M.S.SANKLECHA, J.) (J.P. DEVADHAR, J.)