TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>ITAT Mumbai upholds CIT(A) decision on sub-brokerage disallowance</h1> <h3>ACIT - 2 (3) Versus. M/s. S.J. Investment Agencies P. Ltd. & vice versa</h3> ACIT - 2 (3) Versus. M/s. S.J. Investment Agencies P. Ltd. & vice versa - TMI Issues:1. Disallowance of sub-brokerage under section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act.2. Interpretation of provisions of section 194H regarding deduction of tax at source on commission or brokerage.Analysis:1. The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai involved the disallowance of sub-brokerage by the Assessing Officer under section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act. The Revenue contended that the sub-brokerage amounting to &8377; 6,57,57,041/- should have been subject to tax deduction at source under section 194H. The CIT(A) had deleted this disallowance, stating that the sub-brokerage fell within the exclusion provided in the explanation to section 194H. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, emphasizing that the sub-brokerage was connected to the buying and selling of units of Mutual Funds, which are considered securities. The Tribunal found that as per the provisions of section 194H, the sub-brokerage paid in relation to securities was not subject to tax deduction at source. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's grounds on this issue, confirming the CIT(A)'s order.2. The Tribunal analyzed the provisions of section 194H, which require tax deduction at source on commission or brokerage payments. The definition of 'commission or brokerage' under this section excludes transactions in securities. The Tribunal noted that Mutual Funds are categorized as securities, and the Revenue did not dispute this classification. The Tribunal observed that the brokerage income primarily derived from Mutual Funds and that the sub-brokerage was paid in connection with services related to Mutual Funds transactions. Based on the details provided, the Tribunal concluded that the sub-brokerage payments were not covered by the provision for tax deduction at source under section 194H. The Tribunal highlighted that the sub-brokerage was specifically related to securities and, therefore, did not require tax deduction at source. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal and upheld the CIT(A)'s decision regarding the interpretation of section 194H.3. In addition to the above issues, the Tribunal addressed a cross objection raised by the assessee regarding the inclusion of service tax in the disallowed amount. The assessee argued that the disallowed sum included service tax, which should not have been disallowed. The Tribunal acknowledged this contention but noted that since the entire disallowed amount was allowed to the assessee, there was no need for a separate adjudication on this issue. The Tribunal clarified that the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer should have been reduced by the service tax amount. Consequently, the cross objection was considered allowed for statistical purposes.In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai dismissed the Revenue's appeal, confirmed the CIT(A)'s decision on the disallowance of sub-brokerage, and treated the cross objection by the assessee as allowed.
TaxTMI 