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

The Commissioner Of Income Tax-4 v. M/S. Sykes & Rays Equities (I) Ltd

High Court 20 Feb 2013 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax-4 v. M/S. Sykes & Rays Equities (I) Ltd
Date of order
20 Feb 2013
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Dismissed

Case summary

In The Commissioner Of Income Tax-4 v. M/S. Sykes & Rays Equities (I) Ltd, the High Court (2013) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.

Issue: Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal was right in deleting the dis-allowance of Rs.56,65,747/- made in respect of Transaction charges without realizing the fact that these were composite charges for professional and technical services rendered by the exch...

Decision: 4)Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed 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 BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1506 OF 2011 The Commissioner of Income Tax-4. ..Appellant. v. M/s. Sykes & Rays Equities (I) Ltd...Respondent. Mr. A.R.Malhotra for the Appellant.None for the Respondent. CORAM : J.P. DEVADHAR AND M.S. SANKLECHA, JJ. DATE : 20TH FEBRUARY, 2013 PC: In this appeal by the revenue following question of law has been raised for our consideration. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal was right in deleting the dis-allowance of Rs.56,65,747/- made in respect of Transaction charges without realizing the fact that these were composite charges for professional and technical services rendered by the exchange to its members and the assessee has failed to deduct TDS thereon? 2)Mr. Malhotra, Counsel for the revenue fairly states that the issue raised in this appeal stands covered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee by the decision of this court in the matter of CIT v. Kotak Securities Limited reported in 340 ITR 333. 3)In view of the above, we see no reason to entertain the proposed question of law. 4)Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. (M.S.SANKLECHA, 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