Tribunal Rules in Favor of Assessee on Disallowance Issue

The Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee regarding the disallowance under sec. 40(a)(ia) of the I T Act, upholding the CIT(A)'s order based on a CBDT circular and a decision by a coordinate Bench. Additionally, the Tribunal dismissed the revenue's claim for disallowance of penalty for violating stock exchange bye-laws, stating that penalties for such violations do not constitute payments for infractions of law. The judgment underscores the distinction between reimbursement of actual expenses and penalties for statutory violations, emphasizing adherence to legal principles and precedents established by the Jurisdictional High Court.

---

---

Issues:
1. Disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the I T Act.
2. Disallowance of penalty for violation of bye-laws of Stock Exchange.

Issue 1: Disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the I T Act:
The assessee, a subsidiary of a stock exchange, was disallowed a sum under sec. 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of tax. The Assessing Officer disallowed the amount, but the CIT(A) deleted the disallowance citing CBDT circular no.715 of 1995, stating that TDS is not required on reimbursement of actual expenses. The Tribunal found that the agreement between the assessee and its holding company involved only reimbursement of actual expenses, following a similar decision by a coordinate Bench. Referencing the decision of the Jurisdictional High Court, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, upholding the CIT(A)'s order.

Issue 2: Disallowance of penalty for violation of bye-laws of Stock Exchange:
The revenue claimed disallowance of penalty under SEBI rules for violating stock exchange bye-laws. The Assessing Officer supported this claim, but the Tribunal disagreed. Citing a case where the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court held that penalties for such violations are not on account of any infraction of law, the Tribunal dismissed the revenue's ground, stating that the penalty paid for bye-law violations does not constitute a payment for infraction of law. Therefore, the appeal filed by the revenue was dismissed.

This judgment highlights the importance of distinguishing between reimbursement of actual expenses and penalties for statutory violations, emphasizing that payments made for the former do not attract TDS implications, while penalties for the latter do not constitute payments for infractions of law. The Tribunal's decisions were guided by established legal principles and precedents set by the Jurisdictional High Court, ensuring consistency in their rulings.

---