https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=333183 The appeal was allowed in the case. The penalty imposed under section 201(1)/201(1A) was challenged due to lack of proper appreciation of the case's merits and violation of natural justice principles. The appellant's argument regarding acting under a bona fide belief and the High Court's observation on transaction charges not constituting professional fees were considered. Additionally, the issue of liability for tax deduction under section 194J on transaction charges paid to the National Stock Exchange of India was resolved in favor of the assessee, following the Supreme Court's ruling that such charges were for facilities and not technical services, thus no tax deduction at source was required. en-us Wed, 24 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 06 Oct 2016 12:27:22 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=333183 The appeal was allowed in the case. The penalty imposed under section 201(1)/201(1A) was challenged due to lack of proper appreciation of the case's merits and violation of natural justice principles. The appellant's argument regarding acting under a bona fide belief and the High Court's observation on transaction charges not constituting professional fees were considered. Additionally, the issue of liability for tax deduction under section 194J on transaction charges paid to the National Stock Exchange of India was resolved in favor of the assessee, following the Supreme Court's ruling that such charges were for facilities and not technical services, thus no tax deduction at source was required. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 24 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=333183