2011 (2) TMI 921

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) No. 110/2010 dated 23.08.2010. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The appellant admittedly has done sub-broking activities during the disputed period 10.9.2004 to 31.12.2004 during which period sub-broker was also covered under the definition of broker in terms of Section 65(101) of Finance Act, 1994. 4. The original authority confirmed a demand of Rs.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... namely M/s. DJS Stock and Shares Ltd., has not given relief on the ground that there was no specific identification that the amount payable on sub-broking activities by the appellant has been paid by the main broker. 6. Learned SDR reiterates the findings and order of the Commissioner (Appeals). 7. I have carefully considered the submissions made by both sides. Inasmuch as the appellant has....