https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=259248 The article explains that disallowance of securities transaction tax under section 40(a)(ib) was not attracted where the broker collected and remitted the tax through client billing, so the deletion was upheld. It notes that the error-trade loss issue was sent back only for fresh factual verification, leaving no final legal determination. It also records that disallowance relating to exempt income under section 14A and rule 8D was sustained because binding precedent governed the computation. Finally, it states that transaction charges paid to the stock exchange were treated consistently with Kotak Securities, so the assessee's claim succeeded and no substantial question of law arose. en-us Mon, 20 Apr 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 05 Mar 2016 16:53:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=259248 The article explains that disallowance of securities transaction tax under section 40(a)(ib) was not attracted where the broker collected and remitted the tax through client billing, so the deletion was upheld. It notes that the error-trade loss issue was sent back only for fresh factual verification, leaving no final legal determination. It also records that disallowance relating to exempt income under section 14A and rule 8D was sustained because binding precedent governed the computation. Finally, it states that transaction charges paid to the stock exchange were treated consistently with Kotak Securities, so the assessee's claim succeeded and no substantial question of law arose. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 20 Apr 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=259248