Case LawHigh Court › The Commissioner Of Income Tax-4 v. M/S....

The Commissioner Of Income Tax-4 v. M/S. Satco Securities & Financial Servicesltd

High Court 15 Nov 2011 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax-4 v. M/S. Satco Securities & Financial Servicesltd
Date of order
15 Nov 2011
Assessment year(s)
2005-06
Outcome
Dismissed

The order — as passed by the High Court

Case summary

In The Commissioner Of Income Tax-4 v. M/S. Satco Securities & Financial Servicesltd, the High Court (2011) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.

Issue: 1.The question of law raised in this Appeal reads thus : “Whether, the Tribunal was right in holding that the transaction charges paid to the National Stock Exchange of India are not hit by the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) r.w.s.

Decision: The Appeal is accordingly dismissed.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.

Sections referenced in this judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.4086 OF 2010 The Commissioner of Income Tax-4. ..Appellant. Vs. M/s. Satco Securities & Financial ServicesLtd., ..Respondent. .... Mr. Vimal Gupta, for the Appellant. Mr. Balkrishna V. Jhaveri, for the Respondent. .... CORAM : J. P. DEVADHAR & A.R. JOSHI, JJ. DATED : 15th NOVEMBER, 2011. P.C. 1.The question of law raised in this Appeal reads thus : “Whether, the Tribunal was right in holding that the transaction charges paid to the National Stock Exchange of India are not hit by the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) r.w.s. 194J of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ?” 2.This Court in the case of The Commissioner of Income Tax-4(3) Vs. M/s. Kotak Securities Limited, in Income Tax Appeal No.3111 of 2009 decided on 21st October, 2010 has held that the transaction charges paid by the assessee to the Stock Exchange are covered under Section 194J of the Income Tax Act, 1961, but disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) cannot be made in A.Y. 2005-06 in view of the fact that both the Revenue as well as the assessee were under the belief from 1995 till 2004-05 that the transaction charges were not covered under Section 194J of the Act. 3.Since the question raised in this Appeal is squarely covered by the judgment in the case of Kotak Securities Ltd.(supra), we see no reason to entertain this Appeal. The Appeal is accordingly dismissed. (A. R. JOSHI, J.)(J. P. DEVADHAR,J.)
Facing a similar income-tax issue?
Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.
✅ File an income-tax appeal (CIT(A)/ITAT) → 💬 Ask our CA
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.
Contact Careers Media / Press · Privacy Terms Refund Cancellation Cookies Disclaimer
© 2026 EaseValue Advisors LLP · LLPIN ACN-4920 · Jaipur, Rajasthan