The Commissioner Of Income-Tax - Mumbai v. Ssj Finance & Securities Pvt Ltd

Ladda IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL Lodging No. 1153 of 2010. The Commissioner of Income-tax - Mumbai ... Appellant. Versus SSJ Finance & Securities Pvt Ltd ... Respondent. Mr Vimal Gupta for the appellant.None for the respondent. CORAM : J.P. Devadhar & A.R. Joshi, JJ. DATE : 10 January,2012. P.C. :- 1. The following four questions of law are raised by the revenue in this appeal. (a) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal was justified in allowing the interest payment pertaining to earlier years made by the Assessee amounting to Rs.44,31,111/- under the SEBI Interest Liability Regularization Scheme Under Section 43-B of the Income-Tax Act? (b) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal was justified in holding that turnover charges paid by the Assessee to SEBI fell within the purview of Section 43B of the Income Tax Act? (c) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal was justified in holding that V-SAT and Transaction charges paid to the Stock Exchange by the Assessee Company were allowable as a deduction from taxable Income even though the Assessee Company had failed to deduct TDS thereon? (d) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal was justified in holding that V-SAT and 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? 2.The assessment year involved herein is AY-2005-06. 3. As regards the first question is concerned, Counsel for the revenue has fairly stated that the said question has been answered against the revenue by the decision in the case of CIT vs. M/s Sykes & Ray Equities (I) Ltd.being Income Tax Appeal No. 3563 of 2010 decided on 14[th] October, 2011. In this view of the matter, the first question cannot be entertained. 4.As regards the second question is concerned, Counsel for the revenue states that he does not press the said question as it does not arise out of the order of the ITAT. Accordingly, the second question cannot be entertained. 5. As regards the third question is concerned, Counsel for the revenue states that as regards V-SAT charges are concerned, the said issue is covered against the Revenue by the decision of this Court in Income Tax Appeal (L) No. 475 of 2011 (Income Tax Commissioner, Mumbai Vs. Angel Capital & Debit Market Ltd) decided on 28[th] July, 2011. Ladda 6.As regards payment of the transaction charges paid to the Stock Exchange, the Counsel for the Revenue states that the question is covered against the Revenue by the decision of this Court in the case of the CIT vs. M/s Kotak Securities Ltd being Income Tax Appeal No. 3111 of 2009 decided on 21[st] October, 2011. 7.As regards the fourth question is concerned, the Counsel for the Revenue fairly states that the said question is covered against the revenue by the decision of this Court in the case of CIT vs. Angel Capital & Debit Market Ltd (cited supra). Accordingly, the fourth question raised by the Revenue cannot be entertained. In the result, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. (A.R.Joshi,J) (J.P.Devadhar,J.)