The Commissioner Of Income Tax-4 v. M/S.ise Securities & Services Ltd

srk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTIONINCOME TAX APPEAL LODGING NO.482 OF 2011 The Commissioner of Income Tax-4 ...Appellant Versus M/s.ISE Securities & Services Ltd. ...Respondent Mr.Vimal Gupta for appellant.Mr.Ajay Singh for respondent. CORAM: DR.D.Y. CHANDRACHUD & M.S.SANKLECHA, JJ. February 28, 2012. P.C. 1. The following questions of law have been raised by the Revenue in this Appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (a)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal was justified in holding that the Assessee company was entitled to the claim of Bad Debts amounting to Rs.4,57,289/- with respect to the losses suffered by the Assessee Company even though such losses do not form part of the computation of income of the Assessee Company and therefore, the provisions of Section 36(1)(vii) read with Section 36(2) are not satisfied; (b)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal was justified in holding that Lease Line charges paid to the Stock Exchange by the Assessee company were not paid in consideration of technical services rendered by the Stock Exchange within the meaning of Section 194J read with Explanation 2 to Section 9(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act; and (c)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal was right in deleting the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer of claim of the Assessee company for a deduction of payment of Rs.3,55,594/- towards penalty paid to the stock exchange even though such penalty payment was clearly disallowable under Explanation to Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act. 2.Counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue and the counsel appearing on behalf of the assessee are agreed that the first question of law itxal-482-11 shall stand covered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue by the judgment delivered today in Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-II, Mumbai Vs. Shri Shreyas S. Morakhia.[1] As regards second and third questions, both the counsel are agreed that those questions would stand governed in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue by the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in The Income Tax Commissioner, Mumbai City-4 Vs. Angel Capital & Debit Market Ltd.[2] In the circumstances, the appeal does not raise any substantial question of law and the same is accordingly dismissed. (DR.D.Y. CHANDRACHUD,J.) (M.S.SANKLECHA, J.) 1. Income Tax Appeal No.89 of 2011 decided on 28/2/2011 2. Income tax Appeal (L) No.475 of 2011 decided on 28 July 2011